Biblical Archaeology and Book of Mormon Archaeology

[Pyreaux]

13 hours ago, NRnowlinMA said:

Pyreaux, you haven't read Dr. Coe thoroughly.  Read his books before you make assertions about him.  The ancient Maya, Axtecs, Toltecs, and the Incas did not know about the wheel, which your Apostle Legrande Richards said the Nephites and Lamanites used to make chariots, in his "Marvelous Work and a Wonder." The chronology of the Mayans, gleaned through Coe's efforts in the translating of the Maya language, shows that the BOM chronology was pure fiction.  Thomas S. Ferguson also realized this fact to his chagrin. Since there were no Nephites and Lamanites in Mesoamerica, there could not have been any Jaredites, a thousand years earlier.  Dr. Coe and his research have proven that the anachronisms in the BOM, such as fine steel, abundant herd of horses, elephants, barley, and the honeybee were pure fabrications from the creative mind of Smith, Jr.  If you have read B.H. Roberts' "Book of Mormon Studies," which the Mormon Church refused to publish after Roberts spent four years producing it, he agrees with much that Dr. Coe stated about the BOM.  And I defer to Dr. Coe's research in every aspect of Mesoamerican anthropology and archaeology, for I know very little about the sciences.  You, however, are significantly unaware of your own religions' claims. 

Dr. John Clark, by email, admitted to me from BYU in a lengthy email that the fact about the horse not being in Mesoamerica before the European exploration, is a major problem in BOM historicity.  He told me that he was considering not teaching it in his classes as a historical fact.  And I have done NO cutting and pasting in my posts.  Have you ever been to a Hill Cumorah pageant?  It is very enlightening about the basic beliefs of the Mormon Church.  Any fulltime missionary at that pageant will tell the curious non-Mormon that the Hill Cumorah, in Palmyra, was the place where the final battle between the Nephites and the Lamanites occurred. B.H. Roberts made that statement in his numerous papers published before 1830, and in his sermons delivered in the Mormon tabernacle.  I am waiting to hear your rebuttal.   
    

You/Coe did not read the Book of Mormon thoroughly. Though a Mesoamerican expert, Michael Coe is not an expert in all things, and on the topic of the Book of Mormon, is a demonstratable amateur who doesn't know what the Book of Mormon actually says, nor about ancient Near Eastern literature. Since many so-called anachronisms in the Book of Mormon are due to a blend of the vocabulary of 1830 dictionaries and King James Bible. "Steel" is any metal subject to “steeling”, any method of “hardening” a metal, it doesn't need to be ferrous. That is how "steel" was used both in English and in the English Bibles. Thus, the Bible translates the Hebrew word "nechosheth" as "steel" 4 times, but probably describes a copper-based alloy, like bronze. (Baumgartner, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament [Brill, 2001] 1:691). Is Bible "steel" an anachronism that disproves the Bible? Or simply where it says "steel" in the book isn't what modern steel is to you/Coe. Coe should know Mesoamerica has many bronze bladed weapons. 

Smelted iron was found by archaeologist Sigvald Linne in a tomb at Mitla, Oaxaca ("Zapotecan antiquities," Ethnographical Museum of Sweden, Stockholm, Publication 4 [n.s., 1938]: 75).

A Teotihuacan find also provides evidence of copper and iron being having been melted in a pottery vessel ("Mexican highland cultures," Ethnographical Museum of Sweden, Stockholm, Publication 7 (n.s., 1942): 132).

Not all "chariots" have wheels. So, again Coe's problem is again one of assumptions. The Book of Mormon mentions chariots but doesn't say they were horse-driven chariots nor wheeled chariots. The Hebrew word that is translated as "chariot" in the Old Testament sometimes means strictly a "palanquin" like in Song of Solomon 3:9. 

Any well-read member will tell you that the Hill Cumorah, in Palmyra, is merely the namesake of the place where the final battle between the Nephites and the Lamanites occurred. According to the Book it can't be the same place. The plates were originally in Book of Mormon's Hill Cumorah, Moroni carried it off for decades far away from the Hill Cumorah to Palmyra, which you can walk from Central America to Palmyra in a year, its nearly a straight shot from the coasts up the Mississippi River. The Hill Cumorah in the book should be nowhere near Palmyra, Moroni didn't wander for years just to go full circle to hide the plates exactly where they started. Hill Cumorah in Palmyra is just where Joseph found the plates, the local members simple named it Hill Cumorah. I suspect you/Coe don't understand what I just told you, because you didn't read it, you are confused because we are talking about two Hill Cumorahs.

Look a Mesoamerican "Chariot"

Edited December 28, 2023 by Pyreaux

[NRnowlinMA]

I see that Kevin is quite an articulate Mormon apologist in the same egregious league of Lindsey, Griffith, Petersen. and Muhlstein and is making an effort to calm "Calm's'" nervousness about possibly being in grave error. At least, Calm does not appear to be arrogant.  He asks questions.  The BOA and the Joseph Smith Papyri have given clear understanding about the extent to which Smith, Jr. went to deceive the Kirtland Mormon community about his abilities to translate foreign languages to English.  In 1979, I had a lengthy phone conversation with Dr. Klaus Baer, before the scholar's death.  I was in Tyler, Texas and he was speaking to me from his office at the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago.  I ran-up quite a phone bill that day. He told me about his translation of the 13 fragments of the Joseph Smith Papyri, from color photos made by "Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought," and his rendering of the Breathing Permit of Hor as ordinary Egyptian funerary texts, and the vain and arrogant attempt of Smith, Jr. to fabricate his own Egyptian grammar and alphabet.  Dr. Baer told me about his imaginative and pragmatic student, Hugh Nibley, and about Dee Jay Nelson and his arrogance.  Dr. Baer made it very clear that nowhere in the JSP was there any mention of Abraham.  Baer's translation of the JSP was confirmed by three other professional Egyptologists, such as Dr. John Wilson from Brown University.  Dr. Baer had chuckled over the phone about Nibley's futile arrogance, and had said, "Even when Hugh was my student at UC Berkeley, his imagination was always greater than his scholarship.  Hugh was desperate to explain away why Abraham at all was not mentioned in the papyri, and why the dating of the papyri was around 100 BCE."  Baer said that the addition of the facsimiles in Smith, Jr.'s BOA was the greatest evidence that Smith, Jr. had used the JSP to produce the BOA, which pseudo-Egyptologist Kerry Muhlstein vainly attempted to proclaim from BYU.  Since Klaus Baer's death Dr. Robert Ritner has made his own translation of the JSP to confirm his venerable mentor's previous translation and went gone on the Internet to dispel the awful illusions that Muhlstein has made about the JSP.  Since Ritner's death others at the Oriental Institute have up the torch of enlightenment.  

For the foregoing salient reasons, I submit that Smith, Jr. was a liar and deceived the Mormon people into believing that he had the ability to translate foreign languages.  The Kinderhook Plates attest to the egregious hubris and arrogance of Smith, Jr. No one had the ability to translate Egyptian hieroglyphics until the Rosetta Stone was introduced in Egyptology by Champollion.  The latently admitted fact that Smith, Jr. used the folk magic "seer stone" to dictate the BOM from out of a black hat into which he inserted his head to dictate to routinely "dictate" what became his 1830 edition of the BOM.  Smith, Jr. discovered this white rock while digging a water well for a neighbor, and for buried treasure.  Hence, the alleged gold plates weren't needed to "translate" a non-existent foreign language, reformed Egyptian.  Hence, it is possible that they never did exist, for David Whitmer had stated thrice that he witnessed the "gold plates" with his spiritual eyes, possibly under in influence of some drug taken by the disciples of Smith, Jr. to produce the illusion and to make them see what Smith, Jr. wanted them to see, perhaps Indian grade peyote.  B.H. Roberts stated in his "Book of Mormon Studies" that it was very probable that Smith, Jr had used Ethan Smith's "A View of the Hebrews" as a fundamental predicate and outline for his 1830 BOM written between 1825 and 1830.  So, is there any wonder why the Mormon Church hierarchy refused to publish Roberts' commissioned findings? 

The lies that the fulltime Mormon missionaries told investigators to Mormonism between 1950 and the present day, while showing them color pictures on flannel boards, flipcharts, and videos that Smith, Jr. sat across a veiled table from Oliver Cowdery before the alleged golden plates with his precious "urimm and thumim" around his neck deceived millions of Christians into joining the Mormon Church.  Hence, if the BOAS is bogus fictional drivel, and was produced by the same flimflam man that produced the 1830 BOM, the BOM must, by direct association, be bogus drivel. You see, I was one of those deceived Christians who accepted the statements of two Utah Mormon missionaries during the autumn of 1970.  There will be more to follow that I will submit for Kevin's benefit.    

[NRnowlinMA]

6 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

You/Coe did not read the Book of Mormon thoroughly. Though a Mesoamerican expert, Michael Coe is not an expert in all things, and on the topic of the Book of Mormon, is a demonstratable amateur who doesn't know what the Book of Mormon actually says, nor about ancient Near Eastern literature. Since many so-called anachronisms in the Book of Mormon are due to a blend of the vocabulary of 1830 dictionaries and King James Bible. "Steel" is any metal subject to “steeling”, any method of “hardening” a metal, it doesn't need to be ferrous. That is how "steel" was used both in English and in the English Bibles. Thus, the Bible translates the Hebrew word "nechosheth" as "steel" 4 times, but probably describes a copper-based alloy, like bronze. (Baumgartner, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament [Brill, 2001] 1:691). Is Bible "steel" an anachronism that disproves the Bible? Or simply where it says "steel" in the book isn't what modern steel is to you/Coe. Coe should know Mesoamerica has many bronze bladed weapons. 

Smelted iron was found by archaeologist Sigvald Linne in a tomb at Mitla, Oaxaca ("Zapotecan antiquities," Ethnographical Museum of Sweden, Stockholm, Publication 4 [n.s., 1938]: 75).

A Teotihuacan find also provides evidence of copper and iron being having been melted in a pottery vessel ("Mexican highland cultures," Ethnographical Museum of Sweden, Stockholm, Publication 7 (n.s., 1942): 132).

Not all "chariots" have wheels. So, again Coe's problem is again one of assumptions. The Book of Mormon mentions chariots but doesn't say they were horse-driven chariots nor wheeled chariots. The Hebrew word that is translated as "chariot" in the Old Testament sometimes translated means strictly a "palanquin" like in Song of Solomon 3:9 or covered litter. 

Any well-read member will tell that the Hill Cumorah, in Palmyra, is merely the namesake of the place where the final battle between the Nephites and the Lamanites occurred. According to the Book it can't be the same place. The plates were originally in Book of Mormon's Hill Cumorah, Moroni carried it off for decades far away from the Hill Cumorah to Palmyra, which you can walk from Central America to Palmyra in a year, its nearly a straight shot from the coasts up the Mississippi River. The Hill Cumorah in the book should be nowhere near Palmyra. Hill Cumorah in Palmyra is just where Joseph found the plates. I suspect you/Coe don't understand what I just told you, because we are talking about two Hill Cumorahs.

 

[webbles]

20 minutes ago, NRnowlinMA said:

Hence, it is possible that they never did exist, for David Whitmer had stated thrice that he witnessed the "gold plates" with his spiritual eyes, possibly under in influence of some drug taken by the disciples of Smith, Jr. to produce the illusion and to make them see what Smith, Jr. wanted them to see, perhaps Indian grade peyote.

There's a lot of witnesses to the existence of some plates.  Emma Smith stated that she felt the plates under the cloth, Mary Whitmer had some sort of angelic visitation away from the rest of the family where she saw plates (https://interpreterfoundation.org/another-account-of-mary-whitmers-viewing-of-the-golden-plates/), the 8 witnesses attested to seeing them in a non-vision situation, etc.  The probability that some plates of some sort existed is far greater than them not existing.  Dan Vogel had proposed the idea that Joseph made the plates using tin or some other local metal because of the number of witnesses to seeing plates in Joseph's posession.  You can argue that David might not have seen them in the 3 witness experience (which includes far more than just the plates) but there is way more than just David.

[webbles]

25 minutes ago, NRnowlinMA said:

The lies that the fulltime Mormon missionaries told investigators to Mormonism between 1950 and the present day, while showing them color pictures on flannel boards, flipcharts, and videos that Smith, Jr. sat across a veiled table from Oliver Cowdery before the alleged golden plates with his precious "urimm and thumim" around his neck deceived millions of Christians into joining the Mormon Church.

The color pictures have always been greatly exaggerated (see all of the Friberg pictures that accompanied the Book of Mormon).  It is unfortunate that people have looked at them and believed they were showing what actually happened, but they never made any logical sense.  Most never showed a cloth between the two which conflicts with what Joseph and Oliver always said about the plates being kept hidden.  And you can't say that Joseph never did use the urim and thumim.  There was an early discussion on the board about the translation process and there's a lot of variations in what the witnesses of the translation say but some do talk about using the urim and thumim.  Others do talk about the seer stone.  So both methods were probably used.

[Pyreaux]

I suppose he thinks Christianity is a lie because white artists depict Jesus as a tall, white ginger.

[NRnowlinMA]

Pyreaux, when words can be changed arbitrarily in the BOM to either support or negate BOM prophecy, as theology changed egregiously from 1830 to 1828 in the BOM, such as the word "white" to the word "pure, from one edition revision to another," to quickly dispel what had long been the BOM prophecy, 2 Nephi 30:6, that the skin of the Native American Lamanite was going to change to a delightsome whiteness, why should anyone place the smallest amount of faith in the BOM? 

Dr. Coe read both the 1830 and the most recent edition of the BOM before writing his "Dialogue" article and based his facts upon valid Mesoamerican research.  You have not read B.H. Roberts' "Studies of the Book of Mormon."  But Dr. Coe had used it as a reference tool.  He had quite a library of Mormon reference materials.  He told me by email, "I never enter into any research endeavor lightmindedly."  He said that the apologetics used by BYU to support the BOM anachronisms were trite and useless.  He stated, "Smith knew what high grade steel was when he used the term in the BOM, just as he knew what a horse was when he said that there were great herds of horses." Dr. Coe told me he believed that the Mormon Church would systematically lie to defend what they have spent billions of dollars to project as real history. "A true scientist cannot afford to be a dire pragmatist.  He must be an idealist and accept the truth produced through the scientific method.  The changes made by the Mormon Church in their theology and scripture attest to this perverse pragmatism."  From 1830 until 1960, the inventions of the Mormon Church hierarchy were rife to promote, as Dr. Thomas Alexander said, the reconstruction of the original theology, doctrine, and history of Mormonism in order to try to make the American Christian public believe that the Mormon god had made those reconstructions instead of mere human beings.  Then again, in 2013, the Mormon hierarchy produced 13 essays to try to allay the damage that former-Swedish Area Authority Hans Mattsson had done by his "truth-seeking" on the Internet and his interview with the New York Times disclosing his utter dissatisfaction with the official rewriting of Mormon history and theology.  Mormon apologists have long been intent on promoting anachronisms in the BOM as not-so anachronistic through sophistry.  Such as the following, from apologist Wade E. Miller's "Steel and Glass in the Book of Mormon:"   "These critics must not have read the Old Testament, at least not very carefully, as it reveals something about steel. In Samuel it reads, “He teacheth my hand to war; so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms.” (2 Samuel 22:35). It seems ironic that when steel is mentioned in 1 Nephi it’s stated, “And it came to pass that as I, Nephi, went forth to slay food, behold, I did break my bow, which was made of fine steel....” (1 Nephi 16:18). Since Samuel the prophet of the Old Testament lived at the time of David, this would have been approximately 1000 B.C. His mention of steel predates Nephi by roughly 400 years."  Miller is using the use of the word "steel."  Fine steel was not around at the time of Samuel.  The translators of the KJV did their very best to translate the holy scriptures, but they made some mistakes.  That is why 2 Samuel 22:35 is rendered differently in every other translation of the Holy Bible since 1611, as noted below:

   2 Samuel 22:35

ESVHe trains my hands for war, so that my arms can bend a bow of bronze.

NIVHe trains my hands for battle; my arms can bend a bow of bronze.

NASBHe trains my hands for battle, So that my arms can bend a bow of bronze.

CSBHe trains my hands for war; my arms can bend a bow of bronze.

NLTHe trains my hands for battle; he strengthens my arm to draw a bronze bow.

KJVHe teacheth my hands to war; so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms.

     Fine steel has been produced by a process that was unknown to most of the ancients.  Some archaeologists have discovered what they have called a low-grade steel produced in 1400 BCE.  This, however, has been questioned as proper by their peers.  If bronze, copper, and low-grade iron were all the metals that were available for the making of weapons at the time of 2 Samuel, the weapons used 400 years earlier must have been more inferior.  Since it has been established that horses and the wheel were non-existent in Mesoamerica until the Europeans began their discovery, the mention of great herds of horses in the BOM in 600 BCE is as arcane and anachronistic as the mention of weapons made of fine steel.     

[webbles]

7 minutes ago, NRnowlinMA said:

Pyreaux, when words can be changed arbitrarily in the BOM to either support or negate BOM prophecy, as theology changed egregiously from 1830 to 1828 in the BOM, such as the word "white" to the word "pure, from one edition revision to another," to quickly dispel what had long been the BOM prophecy, 2 Nephi 30:6, that the skin of the Native American Lamanite was going to change to a delightsome whiteness, why should anyone place the smallest amount of faith in the BOM? 

I think you have your dates messed up.  1830 to 1828?  What end date did you mean?  Also, do you know that 2 Nephi 30:6 was changed from "white" to "pure" in the third edition (1840) by Joseph Smith?  And that there are multiple other places in the Book of Mormon that reference skin color and that weren't changed?  Such as 3 Nephi 2:14-16?  I'd recommend reason Skousen's discussion about the changes in 2 Nephi 30:6 - https://interpreterfoundation.org/books/atv/p2/ (page 895 if you go by the actual page number or page 245 in the PDF since this is volume 2).

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, NRnowlinMA said:

Pyreaux, when words can be changed arbitrarily in the BOM to either support or negate BOM prophecy, as theology changed egregiously from 1830 to 1828 in the BOM, such as the word "white" to the word "pure, from one edition revision to another," to quickly dispel what had long been the BOM prophecy, 2 Nephi 30:6, that the skin of the Native American Lamanite was going to change to a delightsome whiteness, why should anyone place the smallest amount of faith in the BOM? 

Desperately trying to change subjects? Those who read the Book of Mormon can see the words "clean", "spotless", "pure", and "white" are clearly interchangeable synonyms, and the change was made by Joseph Smith himself to clarify that. You/Coe don't know Near Eastern literature's use of these terms. Do you have faith in the Bible, in spite of its seeming skin pigmentation changes from white to black? 

Job 30:30 I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls. My skin is black upon me

Jeremiah 8:21 For the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt; I am black

Lamentations 4:8 Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk... Now their face is blacker than soot

Qu'ran 3:106 On the Day some faces will turn white and some faces will turn black. As for those whose faces turn black, it will be said, "Did you disbelieve after your belief?"

In Near Eastern idioms having black and white skin and faces are an expression of a dark or light countenance, any visible outward impression or indication of one's mood, emotion, or character, or symbolic of turning away from God and turning towards Him, of having unbelief or belief. The Bible verses of people's skin turning black has more to do with a sorrowful or gloomy expression than with pigmentation. Why do you presume the Book of Mormon's doesn't mean exactly what the Bible does by it? If you don't, but believe the Bible, you are full of double standards.

3 hours ago, NRnowlinMA said:

He stated, "Smith knew what high grade steel was when he used the term in the BOM, just as he knew what a horse was when he said that there were great herds of horses."

 ... The translators of the KJV did their very best to translate the holy scriptures, but they made some mistakes.  That is why 2 Samuel 22:35 is rendered differently in every other translation of the Holy Bible since 1611, as noted below:

     Fine steel has been produced by a process that was unknown to most of the ancients.  Some archaeologists have discovered what they have called a low-grade steel produced in 1400 BCE.  This, however, has been questioned as proper by their peers.  If bronze, copper, and low-grade iron were all the metals that were available for the making of weapons at the time of 2 Samuel, the weapons used 400 years earlier must have been more inferior.  Since it has been established that horses and the wheel were non-existent in Mesoamerica until the Europeans began their discovery, the mention of great herds of horses in the BOM in 600 BCE is as arcane and anachronistic as the mention of weapons made of fine steel.     

The Book of Mormon's English vocabulary is taken from the King James Bible's English vocabulary, where it's not a mistake, "steel" means any hardened metal, including bronze (steeled: to make something hard, strong, or durable). So, why can't you extend the Book of Mormon the same courtesy you do the Bible and admit it probably means the same thing there? Playing favorites?

Edited December 28, 2023 by Pyreaux

[NRnowlinMA]

Pyreaux, in the 30 active years that I spent in the Mormon Church, I spent those years as a stake/district missionary/group leader/ward mission leader in 25 wards. while in the USMC in the USA, and in five foreign countries.  I served 8 stake missions in the USA and was with the fulltime missionaries during every period of change in the scripted discussions, from 1971 until 2000.  I saw and experienced every change that occurred in the fulltime missionary programs, and in every one of them the scenes shown to the investigators were those depicting golden plates being translated by Smith, Jr. in a situation where the plates were veiled.  Emma Smith never saw Smith, Jr. translating the golden plates, and she never saw the alleged golden plates.  She only reported to have seen him using the seer stone in the black hat, dictating to scribes what they were to write down.  David Whitmer also said that Smith, Jr. only used the seer stone in the hat to produce the BOM.  Oliver Cowdery ever said that he actually saw the golden plates.  At that time, Smith, Jr. had his disciples so wrapped around his finger and charismatically manipulated that they would have sworn to anything in support of Smith's claims.  

I am not contending with Pyreaux, webbles, and the other Mormon apologists on this forum to be argumentatively polemic.  I am attempting to state the truth about Mormonism so that Christians monitoring the controversy online will understand the egregious pagan and unchristian nature of Mormon scripture and LDS theology, doctrine, and history.  I hope that Christians will download "Lesson 21-Man May Become Like God" to be prepared when the fulltime Mormon missionaries come knocking at their doors.  There is actually so very much history in the evolution of Mormonism, from 1830 until 1844, and from 1844 until the migration from Nauvoo to the Utah Valley, in 1848.  The Brigham Young experience and the Adam-God doctrine, from 1851 until Young's death in 1877, is another expansive era of history that the Mormon Church has chronicled quite incorrectly in order to cover-up the Adam-God doctrine era, which was maintained from 1851 until 1895 and was placed into the temple endowment as the "Lecture Before the Veil" and documented in the book written by Edward Tullidge in 1877 and blessed by Brigham Young, "Women of Mormondom." Tullidge's book was dedicated to Eliza R. Snow, the brother of Mormon prophet Lorenzo Snow, who concocted the infamous saying, "As Man is, God once was, and as God is man may become."  "Lesson 21-Man May Become Like God" is a restatement of Smith, Jr.'s King Follett discourse and Lorenzo Snow's refinement of the pagan polytheistic theology.  

[NRnowlinMA]

Sorry about that!  I typed a "2" when I should have typed a "3," 1830 to 1838, the date of the first major revision of the BOM by Parley Pratt.  Pyreaux, your knowledge of semantics in translation is negligible.  The translators altered the word steel because the steel that was meant by the KJV translators was made from iron ore, while copper, bronze, and un-smelted iron were the only metals used for weapons at the time of 2 Samuel.  Do your homework and you will discover that was a great difference between the use of steel and that of bronze and copper.  Now, about 2 Nephi 30:6.  Your argument is moot because in every reference in the BOM to the Nephites and Lamanites complexion differences, the color of the skin was implied, not the condition of the heart and mind. The delightsome skin was clearly observable and desirable while "pure" meant something that could only be distinguished by the way the person acted or behaved.  The prophecy was stated by Spencer Kimball in 1979, when he said to an Arizona Indian reservation that "soon the skin of the Lamanite will be as white, as the prophecy clearly states."  You see, the Mormon prophets, from Heber J. Grant-on, confirmed that the prophecy was real regarding the copper-colored skin given to the Lamanites as a curse from the Mormon god.  That was the reason that Kimball instituted the Lamanite placement program, where Lamanite children would be placed into the homes of "white people" to advance the fulfillment of the prophecy.  But any reasonable person would have realized that such a plan was pure malarky. 

 

I am curious as to what you have to say about Smith, Jr.'s use of French in the BOM's English vocabulary.  In Jacob 7:27, the French word "adieu" is used as an ending to a chapter.  Isn't that sort of like Moses saying goodby to the children of Israel in German, auf Wiedersehen?  You are so concerned with the propriety of semantics in the Bible and the BOM.  The KJV translators were very concerned with the semantics of expression but used the word steel improperly.  Smith, Jr. proved thjat he was merely creating a fiction when he used "adieu" capriciously.  

A little knowledge is frequently very dangerous, Pyreaux.  You are arguing about apples with oranges, which is plum idiotic.  Why don't you sit down and read "Lesson 21" and ask yourself if you believe what is in it.  Then please read the CES Letter objectively and ask yourself if you don't agree with Jeremy Runnells.  Then, if you are willing, read Micah Wilder's book, "Passport to Heaven."  It is a great read!        

[Pyreaux]

4 hours ago, NRnowlinMA said:

I am attempting to state the truth about Mormonism so that Christians monitoring the controversy online will understand the egregious pagan and unchristian nature of Mormon scripture and LDS theology, doctrine, and history.  I hope that Christians will download "Lesson 21-Man May Become Like God" to be prepared when the fulltime Mormon missionaries come knocking at their doors. There is actually so very much history in the evolution of Mormonism, from 1830 until 1844, and from 1844 until the migration from Nauvoo to the Utah Valley, in 1848.... Lorenzo Snow, who concocted the infamous saying, "As Man is, God once was, and as God is man may become."  "Lesson 21-Man May Become Like God" is a restatement of Smith, Jr.'s King Follett discourse and Lorenzo Snow's refinement of the pagan polytheistic theology.  

Apparently, you don't know the truth about Christianity or Mormonism. The Doctrine of Theosis, that God became man so man can become like God, has long been a doctrine in early Christianity;

"God became man, so that we might be made gods", St Athanasius of Alexandria (295 A.D. On the Incarnation of the Word 54)

"God... became what we are in order to make us what he is", St Irenaeus of Lyons (130 A.D. Grant, Irenaeus of Lyons 1997,  164)

The doctrine of the divinization of man has been an orthodox doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church since Vatican II. 

"We are God's offspring [Acts 17:28], His kin... The gulf between creature and Creator is not impassible... we will become like God.... To be deified... to become a second god, a god by grace." (Ware, Orthodox Church 219)

Edited December 29, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, NRnowlinMA said:

I am curious as to what you have to say about Smith, Jr.'s use of French in the BOM's English vocabulary.  In Jacob 7:27, the French word "adieu" is used as an ending to a chapter.  Isn't that sort of like Moses saying goodby to the children of Israel in German, auf Wiedersehen?  You are so concerned with the propriety of semantics in the Bible and the BOM.  The KJV translators were very concerned with the semantics of expression but used the word steel improperly.  Smith, Jr. proved thjat he was merely creating a fiction when he used "adieu" capriciously.  

A little knowledge is frequently very dangerous, Pyreaux.  You are arguing about apples with oranges, which is plum idiotic.  Why don't you sit down and read "Lesson 21" and ask yourself if you believe what is in it.  Then please read the CES Letter objectively and ask yourself if you don't agree with Jeremy Runnells.  Then, if you are willing, read Micah Wilder's book, "Passport to Heaven."  It is a great read!        

That it's the dumbest issue ever raised. "Adieu" isn't just French, its English, found in Webster's 1828 American English dictionary which demonstrates that adieu was a well-established English word prior to the Book of Mormon's translation.

The CES letter is just plagiarized arguments from the nineteenth century, arguments which have been thoroughly and carefully treated by responsible LDS writers and scholars. He just repeats them and makes it sound as if no one has ever dared to respond to these arguments. In fact they have.

Edited December 29, 2023 by Pyreaux

[awyatt]

Quote

am curious as to what you have to say about Smith, Jr.'s use of French in the BOM's English vocabulary.  In Jacob 7:27, the French word "adieu" is used as an ending to a chapter.  Isn't that sort of like Moses saying goodby to the children of Israel in German, auf Wiedersehen?  You are so concerned with the propriety of semantics in the Bible and the BOM.  The KJV translators were very concerned with the semantics of expression but used the word steel improperly.  Smith, Jr. proved thjat he was merely creating a fiction when he used "adieu" capriciously.

Wow. Just wow.

Let's try to make this simple: If I translate something from Russian to English and I use a word in that translation to convey a thought that was in the original Russian, but the word I choose is not one that Russians would know, does that mean I'm a fraud as a translator?

Nope. The Book of Mormon wasn't originally in English. Joseph Smith translated from the original language. He chose the word "Adieu" not because it was in the original, but because the word would be familiar into the target language--English.

This is not a hard concept.

For those who want the latest scholarship on this issue, there is this: Toward a Greater Appreciation of the Word Adieu in Jacob 7:27. Written by an academic who spent his career teaching at a Catholic university, IIRC.

Edited December 28, 2023 by awyatt

[Calm]

3 hours ago, NRnowlinMA said:

am attempting to state the truth about Mormonism so that Christians monitoring the controversy online will understand the egregious pagan and unchristian nature of Mormon scripture and LDS theology, doctrine, and history. 

Quote

 

BANNED TOPICS include but are not limited to:
• Proselyting, witnessing or other one sided posts intended to preach not discuss

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66539-board-guidelines-update-please-review-before-posting/#comments

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, NRnowlinMA said:

I am curious as to what you have to say about Smith, Jr.'s use of French in the BOM's English vocabulary.  In Jacob 7:27, the French word "adieu" is used as an ending to a chapter.  Isn't that sort of like Moses saying goodby to the children of Israel in German, auf Wiedersehen? 

You think because Joseph used “adieu” he meant that Jacob was speaking French?

Have you actually read any apologetic material or have you only read reactions by critics?  Serious question as use of “adieu” is a pretty big red flag when it comes to criticism given the whole text is a translation.  If you understand why Joseph used English, you should understand why Adieu shows up.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Language/"Adieu"#Question:_Why_is_the_French_word_.22adieu.22_in_the_Book_of_Mormon.3F

Quote

Adieu is simply one English word among many in the Book of Mormon translation. It was in common use among Latter-day Saints and others in Joseph's era. The word's French associations are simply more familiar to the modern reader. 

 

Edited December 29, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, NRnowlinMA said:

Your argument is moot because in every reference in the BOM to the Nephites and Lamanites complexion differences, the color of the skin was implied, not the condition of the heart and mind.

The very purpose of the curse is because of their “iniquity”, a condition of the heart and mind:

Quote

21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

Refers to who is more sinful, a condition of the heart and mind:

 

Quote

O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be awhiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2014/blacks-scriptures

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/what-does-the-book-of-mormon-mean-by-skin-of-blackness

Quote

Two things happen to the Lamanites as a result of their “harden[ing] their hearts against him.” The first is that they are cursed. The second is that Yahweh caused a skin of blackness to come upon them. The curse is a fulfillment of Lehi’s prophecy about the land: “If iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes” (2 Ne. 1:7). That cursing was pronounced upon the land, but the iniquity must come from people, not land. The cursing follows the people who work iniquity. Thus, Nephi can claim that the Lamanites are cursed because they fall under that foundational prophecy of the land which included both a blessing and a curse, according to righteousness.

The second part of this verse indicates that, after the curse, another sign was placed upon the Lamanites that allowed for a separation between the Lamanites and Nephites. This barrier is very clearly a religio-political one, because it specifically forbids intermarriage. There are two important aspects to this declaration. One is this establishment of rules concerning potential marriage partners, and the second is the nature of the skin of blackness.

If Joseph meant race/skin colour (since in your view he is the author) why do you suppose he chose to use “black” (which happens to mirror language in the Bible where colour is symbolic) instead of “red”, the more common and recognizable description of Native American skin colour?

Quote

RED men, red people, red children, the aboriginals of America, as distinguished from the whites.

Quote

BLACK, noun That which is destitute of light or whiteness; the darkest color, or rather a destitution of all color; as, a cloth has a good black

1. A negro; a person whose skin is black

https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Black

Edited December 29, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

Marvin Perkins notes a pattern that indicates that the words "black and white" in the Book of Mormon are synonymous with "wicked and righteous" and "out of the church or in the church".^[10]

2 Nephi 26:33:

and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Alma 1:30:

and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need

Alma 11:44:

Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous

Perkins concludes,

Now, in Alma 1:30 and behold “…they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young,” (there’s your pattern) “…bond and free… male and female, whether out of the church or in the church,” There’s your black or white.

How about Alma 11: 44? “Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free… male and female,” (again, there’s your pattern) “both the wicked and the righteous.” 

 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/The_Lamanite_curse

[Calm]

Quote

Now, let’s talk about “black and white.” When you read “black and white” in the scriptures we’ve been thinking, relative to man, we’ve been thinking it means race or skin color. Not the case. Remember, Blumenbach created those terms in 1775. How many books of scriptures do we have that could have benefited from Blumenbach’s flawed theory? One, The Doctrine and Covenants and that’s the only book of scripture that doesn’t have any confusing language about black or white. Idioms. You like that, that’s good.

Black and white are dealing with spiritual darkness, gloominess, or being dejected, they are dealing with an emotional or spiritual state. The word “white” is dealing with righteousness or purity. Nothing to do with skin color at all. We know there are no black people. We know there are no white people. We understand Blumenbach’s theory. 

Let’s take a look at this:

(slide)
Jeremiah 8:21 – For the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt; I am ^ablack; astonishment hath taken hold on me.
21a: Heb. idiom meaning ‘gloomy.’ 

Jeremiah 14:2 – Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish; they are ^ablack unto the ground; and the cry of Jerusalem is gone up.
2a: OR Dejected

Jeremiah 8:21 – For the hurt of the daughter of my people I am hurt; I am black; astonishment hath taken hold on me. What’s interesting is that only in the LDS version of the King James Bible are you going to find a footnote that gives you clarity on that word “black” that says it’s a Hebrew idiom meaning gloomy. 

Let’s go to Jeramiah 14:2 –“Judah mourneth and the gates thereof languish….” Again, more anguish, people are suffering here, having problems. “Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish; they are ablack unto the ground; and the cry of Jerusalem is gone up.” Again, only in the LDS version of the King James Bible are you going to find a footnote referring to “dejected.” It’s also a Hebrew idiom.

Quote

1 Samuel 16:7
But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.

The Lord is trying to teach the prophet not to look on the outward appearance to judge someone’s worthiness. So why would he change someone’s skin color for some men to look on the outward appearance to judge their worthiness? It’s contrary to the law of God for the Lamanites to have a darker skin than the Nephites or a skin color changing as a result of sin

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2014/blacks-scriptures

[Calm]

4 hours ago, NRnowlinMA said:

A little knowledge is frequently very dangerous, Pyreaux.

Listen to yourself please….if you intend to be a critic of LDS arguments, maybe you should pay attention to what Saints are saying these days in their research rather than what critics use so you actually engage with actual positions.

Quote

Then please read the CES Letter objectively and ask yourself if you don't agree with Jeremy Runnells. 

What makes you think people here have not read the CES Letter and researched its claims?  Some of us were aware of the “letter” before it was published (were you aware that he crowdsourced questions/responses to a critical Reddit forum rather than it being a personal effort of a Saint struggling with doubts and sincerely hoping for answers that resolved them?)

——

Are you going to engage with actual responses to you on this thread or just continue to throw out claims you do not prove or even support/document.

You have one (at least) outstanding CFR that you are required to answer or risk being banned from the thread and possibly the board because the moderators want this board to be a discussion forum and not a pulpit for either Saints or critics or anyone else.

As requested before, please document this claim:

Quote

it was Smith, Jr. who stated in his history that Moroni, the angel, buried the alleged golden plates on a hill he called Cumorah near Palmyra, New York, near where the final battle BOM occurred.

(My bold)

I am changing the request to publish John Clark’s response to you to a CFR since you have not given me much reason to trust your paraphrasing of LDS positions.

To give fair warning, if you do not respond to these CFRs and provide documentation, I will report you to the moderators and they may or may not choose to ban you from the board because of refusal for actual discussion rather than just accusation.

Edited December 29, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

9 hours ago, NRnowlinMA said:

see that Kevin is quite an articulate Mormon apologist in the same egregious league of Lindsey, Griffith, Petersen. and Muhlstein and is making an effort to calm "Calm's'" nervousness about possibly being in grave error. At least, Calm does not appear to be arrogant.  He asks questions.

Calm is a “she” and is not the least nervous about being in error.  I have substantive documentation backing up my positions, something I am not seeing from you.

Also I have been a member of FAIR for 20 years, so probably qualify for the term “apologist” as well.  I am not much into labeling people, prefer to use “critic” and “believer” (in reference to the Restored Gospel, of course) and otherwise try to use the labels others choose for themselves, unless they seem quite inappropriate.

I am asking questions not because of doubt, but because I am interested in your thought process…and rather disappointed you are playing the drama/emotions game by mindreading others’ emotional state…and failing drastically btw.

[Calm]

10 hours ago, NRnowlinMA said:

The Kinderhook Plates attest to the egregious hubris and arrogance of Smith, Jr.

 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Kinderhook_Plates

Quote

Don Bradley presented compelling evidence during his 2011 FAIR Conference presentation that Joseph Smith did indeed attempt to translate a character on the Kinderhook Plates.^[5] Bradley noted that William Clayton's account is likely representing personal and specific knowledge acquired from Joseph Smith, since evidence indicates that he made his journal entries that day while he was at the Prophet's home. Clayton's account states that 

Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharoah king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.

Bradley noted that one of the most prominent characters on the Kinderhook Plates (a symbol shaped like a boat), when broken down into its individual elements matched a symbol found on page 4 (the second page of characters) of the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL), often referred to as the "Egyptian Alphabet. The GAEL provides meanings for the individual symbols, and the meaning assigned to the particular symbol found on the plates supports the translation reported to have been provided by Joseph.

The conclusion is that Clayton's account appears to be accurate, that Joseph did attempt to translate "a portion" of them by non-revelatory means, and the translation provided matches a corresponding symbol and explanation in the GAEL.

 

The next part on whether or not Joseph attempted to translate the Kinderhook plates is best viewed at the site due to formatting.

Whether or not he tried to attempt to translate the KP (Don Bradley is an excellent researcher and at this time I trust his appraisal of this event, but see no reason to insist others view the evidence in the same way), Joseph’s translation method of the Book of Mormon was very different…

Quote

At the time that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, he only claimed the ability to translate by the "gift and power of God." Over time, Joseph studied other languages and wished to learn to translate by other means. His attempt to use the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (a document that he and others had created) to attempt a translation of the Kinderhook Plates fits in with this desire. Since only a single character "matched," Joseph would have been unable to continue to translate the plates in this manner. This may explain why such a translation was never produced: beyond the single character which happened to match, it would not have even been possible to translate the fraudulent plates either manually or by the "gift and power of God." Therefore, no translation was ever produced.

 

 

[Calm]

10 hours ago, NRnowlinMA said:

Hence, it is possible that they never did exist, for David Whitmer had stated thrice that he witnessed the "gold plates" with his spiritual eyes,

Do you mean Martin Harris?  If you do mean David Whitmer, please provide the three quotes.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/"Eye_of_Faith"_and_"Spiritual_Eye"_statements_by_Martin_Harris#Question:_Did_Martin_Harris_tell_people_that_he_only_saw_the_plates_with_his_.22spiritual_eye.22.3F

As for David Whitmer, he gave testimony against the idea it was only a “spiritual” experience:

Quote

In regards to my testimony to the visitation of the angel, who declared to us three witnesses that the Book of Mormon is true, I have this to say: Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time. Martin Harris, you say, called it 'being in vision.' We read in the Scriptures, Cornelius saw, in a vision, an angel of God. Daniel saw an angel in a vision; also in other places it states they saw an angel in the spirit. A bright light enveloped us where we were, that filled at noon day, and there in a vision, or in the spirit, we saw and heard just as it is stated in my testimony in the Book of Mormon. I am now passed eighty-two years old, and I have a brother, J. J. Snyder, to do my writing for me, at my dictation. [Signed] David Whitmer. 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_What_did_the_other_witnesses_say_regarding_"spiritual"_versus_"natural"_viewing_of_the_plates%3F (my bold)

Edited December 29, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

10 hours ago, NRnowlinMA said:

B.H. Roberts stated in his "Book of Mormon Studies" that it was very probable that Smith, Jr had used Ethan Smith's "A View of the Hebrews" as a fundamental predicate and outline for his 1830 BOM written between 1825 and 1830.

You ignored my earlier response apparently which showed BH Roberts explained he was collecting critics’ arguments, not stating his own beliefs.

I will use an additional quote in this second response to go with the first quote, but urge anyone actually interested in the truth of the matter to read the complete response on-site as I believe the detailed analysis is quite useful.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/evasive-ignorance-anti-mormon-claims-that-b-h-roberts-lost-his-testimony

Quote

Roberts states in the letter that his purpose in compiling “A Parallel” was to point out how “it could be urged that the [Smith] family doubtless had [View of the Hebrews] in their possession,” noting that the question of whether View of the Hebrews supplied the structural outline and some of the content for the Book of Mormon

“may possibly arise some day, and if it does, it would be greatly to the advantage of our future Defenders of the Faith if they had in hand a thorough digest of the subject matter… Let me say also, that the Parallel that I send to you is not one fourth part of what can be presented in this form, and the unpresented part is quite as striking as this that I submit”. [Emphasis added]¹⁷

Note carefully that Roberts does not express consternation that this theory is true, but that he is concerned about the future potential of such an approach by unfriendly critics. His aim is to provide “our future Defenders of the Faith … a thorough digest of the subject matter.” 

 

Edited December 29, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

10 hours ago, webbles said:

There was an early discussion on the board about the translation process and there's a lot of variations in what the witnesses of the translation say but some do talk about using the urim and thumim.  Others do talk about the seer stone.  So both methods were probably used.

Too lazy tonight to help by providing the link, though may get the urge later, but this can be used as an alternative support:

Quote

The Nephite interpreters were intended to assist Joseph in the initial translation process, yet the manner in which they were employed was never explained in detail. The fact that the Nephite interpreters were set in rims resembling a pair of spectacles has led some to believe that they may have been worn like a pair of glasses, with Joseph viewing the characters on the plates through them. This, however, is merely speculation that doesn't take into account that Joseph soon disassembled the fixture, the spacing between seer stones being too wide for his eyes. The accompanying breastplate also appeared to have been used by a larger man. Like its biblical counterpart (the High Priest's breastplate contained 12 gems that symbolized him acting as a mediator between God and Israel), the Nephite breastplate was apparently non-essential to the revelatory process.

 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Urim_and_Thummim#Question:_Did_Joseph_Smith_use_the_Nephite_interpreters_to_translate.3F_Or_did_he_use_his_own_seer_stone.3F