Matt's Mormon Thread

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, Joseph Smith sure did. And people in 1830 would have understood it. The point is, whether he faked the whole thing or translated it from a genuine ancient text, he still could have converted it into the particular writing style that he did. And yes, 'Reformed Egyptian' was the writing system used - Hebrew words using an Egyptian script. It wasn't heiroglyphics, so it might have been Demotic. But which writing system used in the original wouldn't have a big impact on which form of English was used in the translation.

 

[ironduck]

I looked at this alleged transcript of the book of mormon characters, is that considered valid?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Caractors_large.jpg

Doesn't look like either Demotic nor hieratic. Also, what's the point of writing Hebrew words with an Egyptian script? From the passages I've read of the book of mormon it's not exactly concise, so lack of space doesn't seem to be the problem.

I looked around a bit and found something on this KJ style of writing which says not only are passages apparently copied over, but the grammar is messed up and stuff..

He recycles quotes over and over again. He uses archaic King James vocabulary in a manner that shows he was not familiar with the true meaning of the words. He quotes King James translation errors again and again. In short, there can be very little doubt that the King James Version inspired large sections of the Book of Mormon.

From http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bom/intro.shtml

 

[The Last Conformist]

Regarding Ironduck's question:

Smith didn't claim that the Book of Mormon was written in Demotic, as far as I know. However, that doesn't really matter. The style of English into which Smith translated it isn't all that important either - since it was a translation, he could've done it just as easily in 1830 English or the sort of formal English he used (it isn't King James English, as far as I can tell it's just what people in 1830 would have viewed as 'formal').

Well, then you can't tell good enough. It's deliberately archaizing, apparently to mimic KJV diction.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I see what you mean, it does use a lot of 'thee' and 'thou' and end verbs in 'eth' and so forth. But it's a noticably different style from King James English, something in between King James-era and 1830 English, and having read the entire book several times I understand all the words that are used, which I can't always say about the KJB. And whether Joseph Smith was trying deliberately to imitate King James English or not doesn't really affect whether the book is true. He always said that although God was helping him translate, he had some control, which means he would have been choosing what form of English to use. Based only on that, it is just as plausible that he was translating an ancient text and using a form of English that others would have recognized as 'scriptural' as that he made up the entire book and wrote it in a form that imitates the KJB.

 

[ironduck]

Still, there doesn't seem to be anyone who has a clue what this language is that it was translated from. I asked if the above transcript was considered valid by the mormons.

It seems that no one but Joseph Smith's close friends and relatives ever attested to have seen the plates, and no one apparently knows what the original scripture looks like, and no one knows what language it was written in (yes, some kind of Egyptian script for Hebrew language, sounds very peculiar and I haven't found any scientific evidence to back it up).

Is it really that murky? From the outside it sounds like a made-up language with no impartial witnesses of the original sources and not a particularly good translation (bad grammar, etc). Compare to the biblical scriptures that remain which have been verified and are available to see, and their language is well known.

 

[El_Machinae]

On the polygamy then: do the LDS consider polygamy to be truely righteous, and they only fold due to persecution? Or is it now considered to be immoral by the mainstream?

I'd really like to hear the justifications as well. There are polygamists in Canada, and I can see this issue coming up after gay marriage became the law here (since there are no victims in a proper polygamous relationship)

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The whole story behind polygamy: (well, part of the whole story)

The official Church doctrine is that God can authorize polygamy for His own reasons, through a prophet, but that it is a sin otherwise. Thus Abraham and Jacob could do so, but the early Christian church couldn't. There are verses in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants that back this up. In 1852, the Church announced that it was practicing polygamy and had been doing so since 1843. The section of the Doctrine and Covenants which we believe was God's authorization is dated to 1831, which is probably when it began. Several groups that broke off from the church claimed that it was not practiced by founder Joseph Smith, but he almost certainly began it. Although a number of reasons are given as to why this was done, including differences in number between men and women, there is no official doctrinal reason other than that God commanded it. Notably, many early Church leaders, including Brigham Young who became its greatest champion, were dubious of it at first.

Although the reason most non-Mormons give for its abandonment in 1890 is that it was necessary for Utah to become a state, no one has ever explained why the leaders of the Church wanted Utah to become a state so badly. What is true is that at the time the federal government had launched a crusade against the Church, disbanding it as an official corporation and jailing hundreds of polygamous fathers - and also taking away women's ability to vote which Utah was the second state or territory to grant. The president of the Church at the time, Wilford Woodruff, announced in 1890 that he had asked God and been told that it was time to give up polygamy - he also said that if God hadn't told him, he would have let the Church be destroyed before backing down. This was reinforced in 1904 when contracting polygamous marriages became an excommunicable offense. So within the mainstream church, polygamy is now immoral.

However, some groups did claim that Woodruff was only appearing to cave and really the practice was meant to continue. They are known as 'Fundamentalist' Mormons and if found within theChurch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are excommunicated. There are groups of them throughout Utah, Arizona, and several other places; I think most polygamists in the American or Canadian West belong to these groups. One big difference they have is that some of them coerce underage girls into marriages with Church leaders (there is a man whose name escapes me now on the run in Arizona for this). This was not a feature previously; although sometimes the polygamous marriages would fail spectacularly, they weren't coerced and required permission from the top levels of the Church and proof the man could support another family.

As far as non-coerced polygamy, although now it would be considered immoral by members of the Church, given that it has been part of human history much longer than gay marriage, I can't see any justification in legalizing the second but not the first. My opinion on that though.

 

[la cosa nostra]

God is billions of people worldwide sharing one imaginary friend.

Get over it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Eran: Thanks! That was really informative. I appreciate that the LDS has changed doctrine so that they don't give the appearance of "caving".

The 'non-believers' can always wonder what really happened too easily, but now I know where the LDS come from in this regard. Thanks.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

God is billions of people worldwide sharing one imaginary friend.

Get over it.

Well, gosh, when you put it like that, I guess I have no choice. Some people are sincere in what they believe, and have good reasons to believe in God. Get used to it.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Eran: Thanks! That was really informative. I appreciate that the LDS has changed doctrine so that they don't give the appearance of "caving".

The 'non-believers' can always wonder what really happened too easily, but now I know where the LDS come from in this regard. Thanks.

Actually, we technically say that it wasn't changing doctrine, only practice (ie we still have the same opinion on polygamy, that it's ok only when God allows it) but that is, I think, a question of semantics, and for all intents and purposes, as far as an outsider is concerned it is a change in doctrine.

 

[Daaraa]

Hello,

I'm glad to finally see a civil "mormon" thread. Good job to the ones keeping it civil.

BTW this is my first post in years because of a flame war I got into over this topic. I came back to this site to check out Civ 4 stuff.

 

[downtown]

Glad to have you back

 

[ironduck]

I'm still trying to understand why Joseph Smith is considered a prophet, but ah well..

 

[El_Machinae]

It's the same issue with trying to discover why anyone else is a prophet. Basically it's a matter of believing their religious experience.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I'm still trying to understand why Joseph Smith is considered a prophet, but ah well..

We consider him a prophet because we believe he talked with God. (That's the literal 'why'). Despite some of the allegations made against him, I don't see how he was any less likely to be a prophet than anyone else, so if one is willing to believe in prophesy in the first place, he could be. But my belief is founded on more than plausibility. In fact, it is the result of religious experiences that I have had that would be impossible to describe here that lead me to believe that most of the claims he made were true.

 

[Quasar1011]

Dude: who wrote Galatians, and when?

The Apostle Paul wrote a letter to the church in Galatia ~55 A.D. It has been preserved as inspired Scripture as the Book of Galatians. The Apostle Peter called Paul's writings Scripture:

2nd Peter 3:15-16
Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Who decided to include it in the Bible?

Contrary to popular belief, one Person made that decision. His name is the Holy Spirit. Peter already called Paul's writings "Scriptures", so Galatians was recognized as being inspired by the Holy Spirit, in the first century.

Who is the 'we' referring to?

Paul answers that in verse 1 of Galatians chapter 1:

Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— and all the brothers with me,
To the churches in Galatia:

Who is the "we"? The answer is "Paul... and all the brothers with me."

Are you a 100% sure that the people who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the ones being referred to in Galatians?

Of course they aren't. The gospel (written from 4 different viewpoints) is for all people of all time. So is the Book of Galatians. However, the 4 gospels were never written for a specific church congregation. Galatians was.

@Quasar: When Galatians was written, the four gospels as we know them didn't even exist.

I am not speaking of the 4 written gospels. I am speaking of the gospel. Paul preached the gospel. That doesn't mean he read out of the 4 gospels. Gospel mean good news.

Romans 15:18-19
I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done— by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ.

If Paul fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ, what was that gospel? He explains it here, in 1st Corinthians 15:1-5:

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

That is the gospel in a nutshell: that Jesus Christ died for our sins, and rose again. The Book of Mormon adds to this, and is therefore another gospel. The Mormon Jesus is not the same as the Christian Jesus. The Christian Jesus was not a man on another planet who attained godhood.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The first time I tried this, the board 'forgot' that I was logged in and ate my post, so take two. I see this question has come up and I will answer it and hopefully everyone is paying attention.

Quasar1011 claims that Mormons believe another Gospel from other Christians. Fortunately for our purposes, he defines what the Gospel is, so we will consider that.

That is the gospel in a nutshell: that Jesus Christ died for our sins, and rose again.

That's a great definition. It's also exactly what we believe! That is the Gospel for us and has been, ever since the beginning. Christ came to earth, suffered and died for our sins, and was resurrected; because of this we can return to God.

Quasar claims that the Book of Mormon says something else, which makes me think he has never read it. Second Nephi 25:26 in the Book of Mormon says,

And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.

This comes up over and over again in the Book of Mormon, and in fact is the central point: Christ died for our sins. And Jesus was a person both human and divine who came to earth and died for us; we do not say, as Quasar claims, that he was

a man on another planet who attained godhood.

Of course, the Gospel is not the same as the Bible. The Book of Mormon is a different book, written by different people at different times, but the basic message of the Gospel is the same. However, some claim that the Book of Mormon can't possibly come from God, by quoting Revelations 22:18-19, which says:

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

There is a problem with this. Some seem to think that the Bible was written as it appears, from Genesis to Revelations, all in one go. But in fact, when John wrote Revelations, several other books that later formed the New Testament (such as the Gospel of John) had not yet been written. And each book existed on its own separately until several centuries later, when some (but not all) of the gospels and epistles of the early church were collected into the New Testament. So when John says 'this book', he must mean 'my book, called Revelations' because if he meant 'all sacred writings', it would have excluded much of the New Testament, yet to be written.

In fact, Moses said something similar in Deuteronomy 4:2, saying:

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Now of course if one holds John's warning to apply to the entire Bible, then so must Moses' - but that would mean eliminating not only the entire New Testament, but most of the Old. But Moses was only talking about his own sayings, not all sacred writings then in existence.

Additionaly, the warning only says that 'man' cannot add to the writing in question. But of course God can; it seems almost blasphemous to say that God can't bring more scripture into the world. We believe that the Book of Mormon was inspired by God and only written by man, just like many believe the books of the Bible were. Now that may or may not be true, but to assume that the Book of Mormon is not true, then to say that because it is not it violates John's warning not to 'add or take away', then to say that it is therefore false, is circular reasoning, I'm afraid.

Basically, when someone says that the Book of Mormon is 'another Gospel' (the subtitle is 'another Testament', or another book saying that Jesus is Christ) what they are saying in essence is 'the Book of Mormon is not the exact same thing as the Bible'. Which we could have told you anyways.

 

[El_Machinae]

Booyah, Eran!

On a scholarly note: the idea that Moses wrote the first books of the Bible are not considered true. The writing and recording of the early Jewish history was done by priests and scholars after Moses died, and recorded the early history of the Jewish people.

Of course, Exodus was first recorded during the time of Exodus, but the recordings were actually made by the 'priests' of the time, and not Moses.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Thanks, El_Machinae. It's true that we don't actually know too much about how the Bible actually came about (who wrote it and when) and what we think we know actually is open to controversy, but that just proves my second point anyways.