tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post114717663823551565..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: "If Only 10% of These Charges, Are True, The Church is False" - The Fallacy of Quantity Versus QualityJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger131125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-59359266234294604432015-06-12T17:02:58.137-05:002015-06-12T17:02:58.137-05:00) "Let us consider the great mercy of God for...) "Let us consider the great mercy of God for a moment. a Chinese, born in China with a dark skin, and with all the handicaps of that race seems to have little opportunity. but think of the mercy of god to Chinese people who are willing to accept the gospel. In spite of whatever they might have done in the pre-existence to justify being born over there as Chinamen, if they now, in this life, accept the gospel and live it the rest of their lives they can have the Priesthood, go to the temple and receive endowments and sealings, and that means they can have exaltation. Isn't the mercy of God marvelous? <br /><br />Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood... This Negro, who in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa--if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincerer faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessing of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory. (Race Problems--As They Affect The Church, An address by Mark E. Petersen at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College level; Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954.) <br /><br /> "We do not intend to admit to our campus any homosexuals. If any of you have this tendency and have not completely abandoned it, may I suggest that you leave the university immediately after this assembly.... We do not want others on this campus to be contaminated by your presence." (Ernest Wilkinson, president of Brigham Young University, in a 1965 lecture to the BYU student body, titled: "Make Honor your Standard."<br /><br />http://mormonquotes.com/Homosexuality<br /><br />http://i.imgur.com/5MwZA41.jpg<br />creeksalmonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09269626993851685681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-15250461263686161752015-06-12T17:01:30.374-05:002015-06-12T17:01:30.374-05:00What Mormon teach about the birth of a handicapped...What Mormon teach about the birth of a handicapped Child and minorities especially in third world countries<br />"This privilege of obtaining a mortal body on this earth is seemingly so priceless that those in the spirit world, even though unfaithful or not valient, were undoubtedly permitted to take mortal bodies although under penalty of racial or physical or nationalistic limitations...." (Decisions for Successful Living pp 164-165) TLDP: 497<br /><br />“There is no truth more plainly taught in the Gospel than that our condition in the next world will depend upon the kind of lives we live here. …Is it not just as reasonable to suppose that the conditions in which we now live have been determined by the kind of lives we lived in the pre-existent world of spirits? That the apostles understood this principle is indicated by their question to the Master when the man who was blind from his birth was healed of his blindness, ‘Master, who did sin, this man or his parents that he was born blind?’ (John 9:2.) Now perhaps you will have a partial answer to some of your questions as to why, if God is a just Father, that some of his children are born of an enlightened race and in a time when the Gospel is upon the earth, while others are born of a heathen parentage in a benighted, backward country; and still others are born to parents who have the mark of a black skin with which the seed of Cain were cursed and whose descendants were to be denied the rights of the priesthood of God” (Harold B. Lee, Decisions for Successful Living, pp. 164-165).<br />creeksalmonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09269626993851685681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-23040282520971992472015-03-07T15:43:11.033-06:002015-03-07T15:43:11.033-06:00One doctrine that is big among the naysayers is &q...One doctrine that is big among the naysayers is "Biblical inerrancy," which holds that there are no mistakes in the Bible.<br /><br />1 Kings 7:23 (repeated almost verbatim at 2 Chronicles 4:2) describes the "molten sea" in King Solomon's Temple:<br />"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."<br /><br />When I ask people who subscribe to the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy how an inerrant book can contain such an inconsistency, sometimes I have to explain the contradiction to them. None of them have an answer, almost all of them jeer at me, and all of them say "The Bible does not contain any errors."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01095173732462678565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-16864352847726693932015-03-07T15:33:45.723-06:002015-03-07T15:33:45.723-06:00John wrote: "The funniest anti accusation I&#...John wrote: "The funniest anti accusation I've ever seen was Decker's claim that the spires on the DC temple are positioned so as to impale the descending Savior at the 2nd coming.<br /><br />"I don't mean to hijack the thread, but can anyone trump that one?"<br /><br />Maybe I can.<br />In the summer of 1965 (when I was a sectarian), I was at a sectarian youth camp. We had church services three times a day, with various speakers. One of the speakers was a sectarian missionary. He told us he had served in Utah, "where everybody is Mormon." One day, he had finished preaching a sermon in a sectarian church there. He came out and got into his car. Men in shirts and ties surrounded the car. One of them stuck a .357 magnum revolver under the sectarian's chin and announced "We're the Avenging Angels from the Mormon Church. If you're not out of town by sundown, we'll blow your brains out."<br />He showed us a slide of a young woman in a formal dress with a typical 1960s upswept hairstyle and explained "Mormons still practice polygamy. This young woman was going to be forced to marry an old man, so we got her out of Utah."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01095173732462678565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-51326437228698330782015-03-07T13:19:22.235-06:002015-03-07T13:19:22.235-06:00https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/03/when-doubts-and...https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/03/when-doubts-and-questions-arise?lang=eng sheds some very helpful light on how to answer your questions without losing your faith. I found this article to be right in line with the experiences in many of these comments.TerrieTXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06978609990194984219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-16006618976248941142015-03-07T11:25:12.198-06:002015-03-07T11:25:12.198-06:00May i just ask one question to all why are you bas...May i just ask one question to all why are you bashing each other`s religions. So called Christian churches are losing thousands of members every year. Yet the muslim faith is growing by more than 15 million members each year with very little or no chance of any of them ever leaving their faith.They have a book called The Choice written by Ahmed Deedat in which he proves that their are over 500 total contradictions in the bible. In this book he gives muslims the scriptures on which to fight the so called Christians. The question to every one is if you now read this book see all these contradictions do you say the bible is wrong. As a latter day saint I still believe the bible to be the word of God in as far as it has been translated correctly. I also believe the BOM to be the word of God. Why? Because both have been testified to me by the spirit. Anyone who does not feel the same way that is his choice. All I ask is stop bashing each other because we do not believe the same as you do let us all love Jesus Christ and do it the way in which we feel the most comfortable. Why? The time will come when each one of us will be tested on our faith in God the eternal Father and in his son Jesus Christ. Let us rather prepare ourselves for that day and rather support each other where we can agree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-88477036288830732902011-09-13T10:44:22.993-05:002011-09-13T10:44:22.993-05:00Thanks for the information, that was certainly int...Thanks for the information, that was certainly interesting! My friend has been trying to convert me for a while now, she gave me some <a href="http://www.pioneerbook.com/ldsbooks/index.html" rel="nofollow">lds books</a> to read, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. She did convince me to go to church with her this Sunday, so we will see how that goes.RHursthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01339829741762971657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-46183581417782297522010-08-30T07:47:20.098-05:002010-08-30T07:47:20.098-05:00"My experience with faith and my experiences ..."My experience with faith and my experiences with the Holy Spirit tell me that what the LDS faith offers, is not at all what God intended, and it is therefore Christ's church." <br /><br />This sentence should have read:<br /><br />"My experience with faith and my experiences with the Holy Spirit tell me that what the LDS faith offers, is not at all what God intended, and therefore isn't Christ's church."<br /><br />Sincerely <br /><br />Catholic Defendercatholic defenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18161360870245850585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-46668235342516639852010-08-30T07:43:51.582-05:002010-08-30T07:43:51.582-05:00Dear Rotorhead,
You seem to be taking a rather ar...Dear Rotorhead,<br /><br />You seem to be taking a rather arrogant position with your comments. How can you assume that someone who has only read the BOM in part, or has not read it, but finds it to be false, is making such a finding with an insincere heart? How can you take a position that such a person is biased or lacks the integrity to investigate objectively, when taking such a position is in and of itself biased and lacking in objectivity? I realize that many folks approached by your missionaries never even give them the chance simply because of their own preconcieved notions about the LDS faith; however, not all those who say no to your church are insincere in their efforts. <br /><br />Some, like myself have listened objectively, and have prayed sincerely about what your missionaries have said. And the Holy Spirit has said its not true. It isn't necessary to read the entire BOM to figure out it isn't true, when one recieves the strong impression in one's heart that the words there are not what they appear to be. I have explained this before, but will again. When I read the BOM I am left with the strong impression that I am reading a poorly re-written version of the old testament. To read further only solidifies that impression for me. Praying further solidifies that impression for me. My experience with faith and my experiences with the Holy Spirit tell me that what the LDS faith offers, is not at all what God intended, and it is therefore Christ's church. <br /><br />Your position seems to be one that the Holy Spirit only speaks to the LDS faithful. This contradicts much of what your own missionaries talk about in their proselytizing. God speaks to us all, he loves us all, and he will welcome us all home regardless of the place in which we say our prayers. That is the divine truth about God...he loves us in spite of our own human failings and preconcieved notions about what faith is. <br /><br />Consider what you are saying in your posting. You can not assume that all folks are of a false heart, when in fact not all are. Doing so is arrogant, and not at all in keeping with the Christian teachings which you espouse to have the entirety of. <br /><br />Sincerely<br /><br />Catholic Defendercatholic defenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18161360870245850585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-73316111936674858622010-08-28T23:34:38.140-05:002010-08-28T23:34:38.140-05:00It has always been an odd thing to me that those w...It has always been an odd thing to me that those who "know" best that the Book of Mormon is false, are those who admittedly have never read it! "yes, I've read parts of it" or "I don't need to read very far to know it's false!"is their mantra. Perhaps that is why we pray for our missionaries to reach those honest in heart searching for truth...for only they will have the integrity to investigate in an objective, and unbiased fashion... then the Holy Ghost can perform the miracle of revealing truth. Faith truly does precede the miracle, therefore, divine truth (The Book of Mormon) can only be had upon the principles of Faith.Rotorheadnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-47981983502335851942010-08-23T13:53:04.961-05:002010-08-23T13:53:04.961-05:00For those reading this thread, I want to tell you,...For those reading this thread, I want to tell you, after synthesizing tons of literature presenting evidence for and against, the Book of Mormon is solidly authentic. What LDS scholars and researchers have accumulated is a mountain of evidence which supports the authenticity of the Book of Mormon - it is what the Prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris and David Whitmer and dozens of other firsthand witnesses claimed. And this evidence absolutely would not exist if it was simply a fabrication from the 19th century.<br /><br />I really just invite you all to do some in-depth research on the positive side. Learn and consider what has been discovered by those who have searched for real verification. I'm not talking about parallels that depend on a particular theory of Book of Mormon geography. At this point I don't even subscribe to the Mesoamerican theory, which is where most Mormon scholarship has focused for archaeological verification. Based on my research, I think the Heartland Model is much more likely. I think most of the Mesoamerican parallels can be explained by cultural diffusion.<br /><br />What do the critics have on their side of the scale? After 180 years the best they have got is a grab-bag of plagiarism of Ethan Smith's "A View of the Hebrews", plagiarism of Solomon Spalding's "Manuscript Found", or the uttlerly absurd hypothesis of Joseph Smith possessing the gift of Automatic Writing. So which is it, anti-Mormons? None of these authorship theories even comes close to adequately explaining the textual evidences authenticating The Book of Mormon as a transmission of an ancient text with Hebraic/Egyptian roots. The anti/ex/post-Mormon view is really not an honest view at all. It does not present the whole story, in context, with all the evidence. I have yet to find someone from this paradigm who will honestly weigh the supporting evidences, particularly that "stone of stumbling" and "rock of offense", to the apostate, namely The Book of Mormon (read Elder Holland's October 2009 General Conference talk "Safety for the Soul" - he is an honest man, and so were Joseph, Hyrum, and their family). There is no "ironclad" evidence against the Book of Mormon. It's all vaporous speculation, conspiracy theory, negatively biased and religiously-bigoted hearsay, and superficial ignorance of the positive evidence. After 180 years, this is all they've got? It is pitiful. Dig a little deeper. Open your minds and your hearts. These propositions don't explain the educated picture. They are ignorant half-truths and half-stories in rapid-fire, but none of them hit the target. I invite you to reconsider the Book of Mormon, the witness, the testament which God has given, from the other side of the world from the Bible, confirming the divinity, atonement, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Honestly consider the evidence.Jesefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15568983976920671988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-12418294009929233972010-08-20T14:08:08.725-05:002010-08-20T14:08:08.725-05:00Hi CD,
Good to hear from you. I and my family are...Hi CD,<br /><br />Good to hear from you. I and my family are well and I hope you are, too.<br /><br />The closest thing I've heard to the authorship theory you mentioned is the Spalding's other manuscript (i.e. not "Manuscript Found"), a.k.a. "Manuscript Lost", theory. Note that Spalding's manuscript was intended to be fictional, while Ethan Smith's "A View of the Hebrews" was intended to be a non-fictional essay attempting to explain Native American origins. Here are a couple of one-pager explanations of the Spalding theory (I recommend reading the footnotes, too):<br /><br />http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Solomon_Spaulding_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html<br /><br />http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Authorship_theories/Spalding_manuscript<br /><br />Spalding's "Manuscript Found" is the only real manuscript. The "lost" one is hypothetical/non-existent. It was imagined by an ex/anti-Mormon, Philastus Hurlbut, without any real evidence. Hurlbut asked some other anti-Mormons some loaded questions (meaning he supplied the details, not them) and even got them to sign some affidavits, but they don't agree with the evidence. It is highly unlikely that Spalding wrote another manuscript after not even publishing the first. You can read the entire Spalding manuscript here:<br /><br />http://www.archive.org/stream/themanuscriptsto00spauuoft/themanuscriptsto00spauuoft_djvu.txt<br /><br />In essence, this is another flunked attempt to explain the authorship of the Book of Mormon. It doesn't fit the historical evidence, the textual evidence, or any evidence, but rather is just sour hearsay mixed with desperate conjecture.<br /><br />On a different note, I've mentioned the Heartland Model for Book of Mormon geography before. They propose, not Mesoamerica, but North America as the geographic setting of the record. There is some very interesting new evidence which supports their theory, (I've mentioned Haplogroup X2/X2a) included in this new documentary called "The Lost Civilizations of North America". Check out the trailer and spot by Glenn Beck:<br /><br />http://www.lostcivilizationdvd.com/trailer.html<br /><br />-JesefJesefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15568983976920671988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-13874451840473515342010-08-20T08:24:50.049-05:002010-08-20T08:24:50.049-05:00HI Jesef,
Interesting stuff you've posted. I...HI Jesef,<br /><br />Interesting stuff you've posted. I'm curious if you've heard this explanation for the BOM. One theory I've heard posed, is that Joseph Smith got his idea for the BOM from a contemporary fiction writer of the time. I've not traced this down to any great length, but what I was able to gather suggests that the BOM is based on a fantasy novel that came out around the same time that Joseph Smith allegedly translated the BOM. It is suggested that most of the people in the BOM, as well as many of the stories in the BOM are actually stories taken from this novel. As I said, I haven't researched this to any great length, but it could be a very plausible explanation. Just wondering if you've come across this account. Hope you are well.<br /><br />Sincerely<br /><br />Catholic Defendercatholic defenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18161360870245850585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-61215271380680209222010-08-09T15:15:59.381-05:002010-08-09T15:15:59.381-05:00If you read that wikipedia article about Haplogrou...If you read that wikipedia article about Haplogroup X, notice the phylogenetic-based dates, i.e. based on evolutionary assumptions of human/ape common ancestry, divergence hypothesized at 5-6 Million years ago, they use, e.g. 30,000BP and 21,000BP. Then see this article, an abstract of laboratory experiments and observations for pedigree mutation rates for mitochondrial (maternal) DNA, ot mtDNA:<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12571803?dopt=AbstractPlus&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn<br /><br />I quote from the abstract: "Taken together, the cumulative results support the original conclusion that the pedigree divergence rate for the control region is approximately 10-fold higher than that obtained with phylogenetic analyses."<br /><br />This means you could divide those phylogenetically-derived dates mentioned by 10 (keep in mind phylogenetically-derived dates are very rough estimates because they use an unsubstantiated and extremely slow rate of mutation - remember, evolution theory is based on slow and steady divergence via mutation), hence 3,000BP and 2,100BP roughly. Those are in the Book of Mormon ballpark, folks.Jesefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15568983976920671988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-55719256478052331692010-08-09T12:49:45.147-05:002010-08-09T12:49:45.147-05:00Well, I've been doing some reading lately abou...Well, I've been doing some reading lately about the alternate authorship theories for the Book of Mormon. The most oft-quoted one is plagiarism of Ethan Smith's "A View of the Hebrews", mainly because of its publication time (1823), place (Vermont), and several generic similarities in theme and structure. The critics focus on the similarities, which they see as beyond coincidental - in fact, they often quote B.H. Roberts who was one of the first to publish the parallels. The apologists, of course, focus on the dissimilarities, particularly the significant details which would have been most likely to have been plagiarized but weren't. Here's what I've synthesized so far. "A View of the Hebrews" was not intended to be fiction, but an essay of a real theory connecting Algonquin tribes with Hebrew ancestry. Why did Ethan Smith try to draw these connections? Because he and many other European Americans saw parallels between the beliefs and practices of these North American tribes and Old-Testament/Israelite religion, too many to be coincidental (in their minds). This was a common view of that era (17th-19th century) which was based on their observations. What modern critics have so often missed, and Hugh Nibley and others didn't let it pass either, was that Joseph Smith didn't need to plagiarize from Ethan Smith - these ideas, legends, parallels, etc. were part of the New England culture at that time. In fact, Joseph Smith referenced VotH as supporting evidence in a Times & Seasons issue - not the usual method of a plagiarist (critics just say he was so overconfident he did it as some kind of audacious inside joke - not very realistic, imo, but they try to paint the picture of a megalomaniac). It gets more interesting, in my opinion, because the Book of Mormon doesn't borrow some of the most tantalizing details from VotH or the prevailing ideas of the time (things that would have been familiar and made it more believable to readers of at that time). Plagiarism also doesn't explain the authenticating ancient markers in the BoM (too many to be coincidental or fabricated, from my view). But the recently discovered DNA connection between Algonquins and Europe/Middle-East (Haplogroup X/X2a - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_X_%28mtDNA%29 ) could explain the Israelite parallels the early Americans saw in some of the North Eastern American Indian tribes, which inspired works like VotH. Phylogenetic-based dates (mtDNA dating based on hypothetical, evolution-based assumptions) put the migration way too early (~35K BCA), but pedigree-based dates (mtDNA dating based on laboratory experiments using real multi-generational genetic samples of stable populations, like Icelandic people) put it well within BoM and Old Testament timeframes. Anyway, the scientific consensus eventually shifted and these Algonquin/Hebrew parallels faded into history as evolution and the prehistoric Asiatic Bering Strait migration theory took over. But our current genetic information now challenges that, at least for North Eastern America. If the Heartland BoM geography model is correct or close, this could get even more interesting. The VotH and Spaulding Manuscript plagiarism hypotheses may actually backfire on their proponents. From my perspective, as a believer of The Book of Mormon, this could show both the wisdom and humor of the Lord.Jesefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15568983976920671988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-57880301006848166822010-08-09T12:46:26.602-05:002010-08-09T12:46:26.602-05:00All of us have biases. We develop them as we are r...All of us have biases. We develop them as we are raised and learn in our familial, religious, and cultural environments. One of the characteristics of humble and open-minded intelligence is the ability and willingness to evaluate and assimilate new information, especially if it contradicts previously held notions. Thesis is what we believe. Antithesis is something that contradicts that belief. Synthesis is the combining of seemingly opposed ideas, which upon deeper examination are actually both partially true, and combining them into a more complex, but realistic, whole, a multi-dimensional idea that lets the false parts fall away. When dealing with people, history, science, and religion, I have found synthesis to be the best approach for seeking true understanding, or finding the truth. I believe the opposite to be true as well: ignorant, close-minded people often see things in a simplified, one-dimensional way which stubbornly refuses to accept anything which challenges their concrete position. Synthesis allows for a lot more gray, more ambiguity, and for faith and reason to coexist more peacefully, in my opinion.Jesefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15568983976920671988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-41463629725114373702010-08-03T18:17:47.714-05:002010-08-03T18:17:47.714-05:00Some people really misinterpret Joseph Smith's...Some people really misinterpret Joseph Smith's "most correct book" quote and pass over so many humble testimonies from the Book of Mormon prophets themselves, starting on the Title page, which admit mistakes and imperfections. Anyway, so it seems pretty obvious that Reformed Egyptian is some kind of shorthand or abbreviated script. Well, one would expect that a translation or transmission of such a record, regardless of its length, into another language such as English to reflect a relatively limited vocabulary. And that is precisely what they have found. See:<br /><br />http://www.mine-control.com/zack/guttenberg/index.html<br /><br />(be careful not to type mind-control ;)<br /><br />The Book of Mormon has the least dense vocabulary of any book over 30K words that they've tested thus far, with a vocabulary of only 5,612 different words in its 275,887 word length (in 1500's/1600's English no less). Fascinating.<br /><br />I just used a computer program to do a a quick word frequency analysis on the Book of Mormon, Solomon Spaulding's "Manuscript Found", and Ethan Smith's "A View of the Hebrews" - the contemporary works that critics, including Lyndon, still claim are the "real" source(s) for the BoM. These were the results:<br /><br />The Book of Mormon:<br />Analysis based on the whole vocabulary<br />Total vocabulary = 6024 types<br />Project wordcount = 274838 tokens<br />Types/tokens = 0.02191837<br /><br />A View of the Hebrews:<br />Analysis based on the whole vocabulary<br />Total vocabulary = 5742 types<br />Project wordcount = 54772 tokens<br />Types/tokens = 0.10483459<br /><br />Manuscript Found:<br />Analysis based on the whole vocabulary<br />Total vocabulary = 6062 types<br />Project wordcount = 39441 tokens<br />Types/tokens = 0.15369793<br /><br />So, just mathematically, without any text cleanup, like eliminating articles, prepositions, etc. (which would reduce each type count by a few hundred words), figuring those types probably balance out for each work, The Book of Mormon vocabulary (6,024 types or distinct words) compared to its entire length (274,838 wordcount), or vocabulary density, is 0.0219. That is only 21% the vocabulary density of "A View of the Hebrews" (0.1048) and only 14% the density of "Manuscript Found" (0.1537). This piece of evidence supports that the Book of Mormon came from a limited vocabulary script.Jesefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15568983976920671988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-19915489050197429632010-08-03T18:16:06.775-05:002010-08-03T18:16:06.775-05:00extinct: in reference to an individual's death...extinct: in reference to an individual's death (1675)<br />Alma 44:7 reads "and inflect the wounds of death in your bodies<br />that ye may become extinct" [similarly in several other places]<br />the pleading bar of God (not in the Oxford English Dictionary, but three early 1600 citations have been found, including one in a legal context) [conjectural emendation]<br />Jacob 6:13 should read "until I shall meet you before the pleading bar of God", not "the pleasing bar of God" [similarly in Moroni 10:34]<br />As noted, only two of these instances of archaic vocabulary (dating from Early Modern English) are found in the 1611 King James Bible.<br /><br />None of these examples are biblical quotes within the BoM and 6/8 of them don't even have a biblical parallel. Skousen said he will be publishing those findings more completely in his Vol. 3 of the Critical Text project, which is The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon. He also said that a lot of what we consider to be ungrammatical in 1800's or present English may not have been in the older English. How could Joseph Smith, or any of his contemporaries, have authored a 600-page volume of scripture in a version of English that predates their own by 200 years? Who would even think of such a thing? Any alternative authorship theory needs to be able to explain this. The author's does not.<br /><br />Additionally, the Book of Mormon itself claims that it was engraved on metal plates/leaves in the "language of [Lehi]", consisting of the learning of the Jews (possibly meaning Hebrew writing structure) and the language of the Egyptians (some kind of Egyptian script), or Reformed Egyptian, as follows:<br /><br />(Book of Mormon | 1 Nephi 1:1 - 3)<br />1 I, NEPHI, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.<br />2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.<br />3 And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge.<br /><br />(Book of Mormon | Mormon 9:31 - 34)<br />31 Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.<br />32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.<br />33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.<br />34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.Jesefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15568983976920671988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-48515738475575274912010-08-03T18:09:37.429-05:002010-08-03T18:09:37.429-05:00CD, glad to see you're still alive and typing....CD, glad to see you're still alive and typing.<br /><br />Royal Skousen, PhD in Linguistics and professor of Linguistics and English at BYU, has been working on a critical text project for the Book of Mormon since 1988, which was just recently completed. The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text is the fruit of this 20+ years of labor, published recently by Yale Press. His findings are fascinating. I quote from a recent article:<br /><br />http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/10/royal-skousens-12-questions-the-critical-text-version/<br /><br />4. What are some of the major findings of this project?<br />(a) The original manuscript supports the hypothesis that the text was given to Joseph Smith word for word and that he could see the spelling of the names (in support of what witnesses of the translation process claimed about Joseph's translation - namely, that he spelled out the Book of Mormon names, at least when the name first appeared).<br />(b) The original text is much more consistent and systematic in expression than has ever been realized.<br />(c) There are a number of errors in the text that have never been corrected in any LDS or RLDS edition, although none of them fundamentally alter the text.<br />(d) There are occasional errors in the original manuscript itself (see, for instance, the reading "Ishmael and also his hole hole" in 1 Nephi 7:5); errors could enter the text from its very earliest transmission; many of the errors in the original manuscript show that this manuscript was written down from oral dictation.<br />(e) Errors in the printer's manuscript clearly show that this manuscript was produced by visual copying from another text, not by oral dictation.<br />(f) Joseph Smith's editing for the second and third editions (1837 and 1840) represents human editing, not a revealed revision of the text.<br />(g) The original text includes unique kinds of expression that appear to be uncharacteristic of English in any time and place; some of these expressions are Hebraistic in nature.<br />(h) The early transmission of the Book of Mormon text does not in general support the traditional assumptions of textual criticism - namely, the assumptions that the transmitted text tends to remove difficult readings and lengthen the text; instead, the early transmission of the Book of Mormon text tends to introduce more difficult readings and to omit words and phrases.<br />(i) The vocabulary of the Book of Mormon text appears to derive from the 1500s and the 1600s, not from the 1800s.<br />This last finding is quite remarkable. Lexical evidence suggests that the original text contained a number of expressions and words with meanings that were lost from the English language by 1700, including the following (with the date of their last citation in the Oxford English Dictionary given in parentheses):<br />to require 'to request' (1665)<br />Enos 1:18 reads "thy fathers have also required of me this thing"<br />[Ezra 8:22: "for I was ashamed to require of the king a band of soldiers and horsemen to help us against the enemy in the way"]<br />sermon 'talk, discourse, speech' (1594) [conjectural emendation]<br />Mosiah 19:24 should read "after they had ended the sermon"<br />(not the current reading "after they had ended the ceremony")<br />to cast arrows 'to shoot arrows' (1609)<br />Alma 49:4 reads "the Lamanites could not cast their stones and their arrows at them"<br />[Proverbs 26:18: "as a mad man who casteth firebrands arrows and death"]<br />to counsel 'to counsel with' (1547)<br />Alma 37:37 originally read "counsel the Lord in all thy doings"<br />[similarly in Alma 39:10]<br />but if 'unless' (1596)<br />Mosiah 3:19 originally read "for the natural man is an enemy to God …<br />and will be forever and ever but if he yieldeth to the enticings of the Holy Spirit"<br />to depart 'to part' (1677)<br />Helaman 8:11 originally read "to smite upon the waters of the Red Sea<br />and they departed hither and thither"Jesefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15568983976920671988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-10850787287216808492010-04-07T08:09:57.545-05:002010-04-07T08:09:57.545-05:00Good Morning Paragua,
I hope that I understood ev...Good Morning Paragua,<br /><br />I hope that I understood everything correctly. I'll apologize in advance, just in case I may not have. You and I, as well as most of the folks on this sight, likely agree as to the validity, and truthfulness of the Old and New Testament. With the exception of the few true Atheists that post on this sight, it would seem that all of us are starting with that basic truth. <br /><br />The question posed here though, has to do with the truthfulness of the BOM. That question really and truly hangs on the veracity of Joseph Smith. If he is being truthful, then the BOM is likely true, if he isn't then everything falls like a house of cards in the wind. My perspective, after many years of considering the question, and listening to missionaries on more than one occasion, and reading pro and anti mormon information, and praying extensively about the question, is that Joseph Smith did not tell the truth. And if he did not tell the truth, then what flows from that information, is not the truth. Your perspective is very different, as is most of the folks who write here. <br /><br />Could Peter, James, and John have authority when they had no time to read scriptures? I don't know that they didn't have time to read scriptures, I'm not that old though some days I feel it. But I do know they had authority given to them. All four of the gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles document the fact that Jesus gave them that authority. The relevance of the BOM has to do with whether that authority was lost to the Earth. I don't believe it was, therefore, there's no need for the restored gospel, because there's nothing to restore. <br /><br />Polygamy and other contraversial doctrines of the LDS Church by themselves would amount to very little fervor, were it not for the question of Joseph Smith's veracity. This world has had those things, and will likely continue to have them, without regard to the christian teachings. But if Joseph Smith was lying about those things, when he preached them. Then they were not from God. That would be problematic to me. <br /><br />One can not prove the Bible, or the BOM. One has to take it on faith. That is one point we all agree on. My faith tells me something very different than yours. I've seen the Dead Sea Scrolls, but that isn't why I believe the Bible to be true. On the same token, it would make little difference to me if I saw the gold plates, because it isn't about seeing the plates that causes me to disbelieve the BOM. The fact is, I see no need for the gold plates in the first place, because nothing was ever lost. That's what I believe. <br /><br />Sincerely<br /><br />Catholic Defendercatholic defenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18161360870245850585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-34043983684416469012010-04-02T01:39:50.950-05:002010-04-02T01:39:50.950-05:00Hi, all
Some say they don't accept the Book ...Hi, all<br /><br /><br />Some say they don't accept the Book of Mormon because it seems a plagiarism of the Bible. How could it be different if the Author is the same? What was the need to have four gospels written? Was it plagiarism? Or who can "prove" (that word again) they didn't commune to forge that story?<br /><br />Again I say, I know the four gospels are true, as truly as I know the "other sheep" received the same revelations.<br /><br />Your friend,<br /><br /><br />Paragua Junior.<br />From BrazilAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-18216368488473740452010-04-02T01:21:10.194-05:002010-04-02T01:21:10.194-05:00Just to keep the fire on...
I'm from Brazil a...Just to keep the fire on...<br /><br />I'm from Brazil and don't speak English that much, so I apologize in advance for my poor English.<br /><br /><br />DC (and all the others), we do know the Mount Ararat exist but, where is the Ark? If there was one Ark, there were place for, at least, a couple of all the "kinds" of animals we do know today?<br /><br />Or where is the Tower of Babel?<br />Or where are the great amounts of bones from the wars the Israelites fought (Exodus, Numbers)?<br /><br />How could Peter, James and John receive authority if they had little or no time to study the scriptures?<br /><br />How could all mankind "flourish" there has been no incest involved?<br />Even in the post flood restart?<br /><br />All these questions are just to make you think of the positions taken during this 3 years (I guess)...<br /><br />I believe there was a flood, with or without an Ark to prove it!<br />(Also believed the whole earth was imersed in water even though science "proves" it couldn't have been so!)<br /><br />I believe the Tower of Babel did exist, even without any ruins of it! (And the Book of Mormon corroborates the Bible account!)<br /><br />I also believe the Israelites fought all those battles, and I don't need to see any single bone!<br /><br />I believe God can use whatever means He wants to make His work and glory go forth!<br /><br />Can one blame poligamy? Can one blame incest? Can one blame the God of War to order the killing of so many people, in order to fulfill His promise to the Israelites that they would possess a promissed land?<br /><br />You talk about your "vantage point".<br /><br />I say we (the LDS people) are in a vantage point. If all beliefs(well lived of coursed) lead to Christ, so we are heirs of the same universal salvation.<br />But if our claims be true (and I believe they are!) all the rest have a big problem! I hope you get the point!<br /><br />For now, my opinion (not my accusation) is that even if you could see the gold plates, that wouldn't be sufficient proof that the Book of Mormon is true.<br /><br />May God bless all of us!<br /><br /><br />Your friend,<br /><br />Paragua Junior.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-86426071919984921352010-03-10T16:36:09.599-06:002010-03-10T16:36:09.599-06:00A message to those contributing to this blog. I h...A message to those contributing to this blog. I have been reading for the past 8 hours, and am thrilled to have been able to listen to both sides. I have nothing to add but a hearty thank you for spending the time to post such detail. You have done, and will do much good for all those who read this in the future. Please keep it up. May God bless America, and all nations that provide for freedom of speach, and religion. Although, it think that the nations that don't allow this may need Gods blessings more.Patrick Gnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-10304443333339223522010-02-12T17:35:11.648-06:002010-02-12T17:35:11.648-06:00Now we come back to the evidence to which I have b...Now we come back to the evidence to which I have been referring. You said, "However, the evidence you suggests contradicts catholicism, I don't see the same way you do. From my vantage point, all the evidence contradicts your church's teachings, not mine." I'll agree that your interpretation of the evidence you are willing to consider may contradict my church's claim, but that is not the evidence I'm suggesting. You went on to talk about your interpretation of the history between the death of the Apostles and now and what you think God would or would not do or allow to happen. I'm really referring to the evidence you must choose to ignore in order to continue believing your story and disbelieve mine. Specifically, I am talking about the many pieces of evidence discovered, mostly within the past century, that support the authenticity of The Book of Mormon and The Book of Abraham. It's the logic from two paragraphs ago, taken in reverse. If these two books, both claimed to be divinely inspired and translated, were fabricated by 19th century fakers, then they would not be authentic and decades/centuries of study and analysis would reveal that. The opposite is true though, without any doubt. Over 180 years of scrutiny and scientific study (the bulk and depth of it within the past 70 years, well over a 100 years after Joseph Smith's death) have authenticated these translations. In fact, the more we dig the more we find that they are what they claim to be to a statistically undeniable degree. This simply would not be the case if they were fiction. The first rule of textual analysis is: there are no clever forgeries. With enough time and scrutiny, the truth comes out and they are exposed.<br /><br />Over the past couple of years, I have presented a few of these pieces of authenticating evidence in this blog. I won't repeat myself here. But I would invite you and anyone to seriously consider and start with just one piece of evidence for The Book of Mormon: chiasmus. If The Book of Mormon is true and what it claims to be, which is "a record in the language of my father [Lehi, i.e. Hebrew], which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language [script] of the Egyptians (1 Nephi 1:2)," then it should have Hebraisms, or characteristics of Hebrew, in it. And guess what? It does. Many of them are very sophisticated and all of them were discovered over 100 years after Joseph Smith's death. Start with chiasmus and open your eyes. Honestly ask yourself and your Heavenly Father how any 19th century human, even if he were a genius, could have produced this record. Here are a few links:<br /><br />http://www.jefflindsay.com/chiasmus.shtml<br /><br />http://www.cometozarahemla.org/chiasmus/chiasmus.htmlJesefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15568983976920671988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-18357815019723597382010-02-12T17:34:41.259-06:002010-02-12T17:34:41.259-06:00Hi CD,
Glad to hear you're still there. I res...Hi CD,<br /><br />Glad to hear you're still there. I respect your beliefs and your position. Your clarifications confirms my understanding of where you stand. What you stated is what I thought you thought.<br /><br />I think we still have a slight misunderstanding, though. First let me quote you quoting me, just for fun :)<br /><br />[You said: "If I interpret you correctly, you are saying that you are satisfied with your faith and don't feel the need or the interest to really consider evidence that (indirectly, in this case) contradicts it (meaning, evidence supporting the Restoration, incumbent apostasy, etc., indirectly refutes the Catholic claims of unbroken succession). " This is in part true. I am quite satisfied with being a catholic. However, the evidence you suggests contradicts catholicism, I don't see the same way you do. From my vantage point, all the evidence contradicts your church's teachings, not mine.]<br /><br />The evidence to which I was and am referring does not contradict my church's teachings. It really does support it. But before I rehash that, I have to establish a logical argument:<br /><br />I really do think Catholicism and Mormonism hold opposing claims. Don't get me wrong, I think we are more similar in our beliefs than we are different. And I know we can peacefully coexist, work together, love each other, and be great neighbors. What I mean is the claims of authority and the stories. I think you agree, based on what you've said. If there was no Apostasy and loss of divine authority; if it was passed from Peter to the Bishop of Rome, as the Catholics claim; then, I agree, a Restoration would have been unnecessary, and the Reformation was probably really a rebellion. So if your story is true, then my story is false. If my story is false: then Joseph Smith was a false prophet (he was either a charlatan or delusional or inspired by the devil); The Book of Mormon and The Book of Abraham, and the other books of scripture produced by Joseph Smith, are false (fabricated by Joseph Smith possibly with some of his cohorts, and/or inspired by the devil), and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is built on a false foundation. Likewise, if the Apostasy did occur, then the Catholic church's claim of a continuation of divine authority is false, with all that that would imply. If that is the truth, I think you would agree that a human Reformation of something corrupt would be insufficient. A Restoration from Heaven would be required. In other words if divine authority were lost, only the Divine could restore it. Men could not reform that into existence.<br /><br />Let me know if you follow and agree with that last paragraph. My point is that our stories are mutually exclusive. And both our stories exclude the Protestants, who ignore the need for divine authority. Some claim no need for authority; some claim it is common or universal (which might as well be none); some claim it is born of faith or from the Bible itself (again, equally vaporous and ambiguous). So Catholics and Mormons at least agree on the necessity for divine authorization. We probably also agree that that does not imply or necessitate perfection in those who hold that authority. But if you have it, then we don't; and if we have it, then you don't.Jesefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15568983976920671988noreply@blogger.com