LDS why is the BOM in King James English

[Dansiph]

I am sorry that you feel that way. Personally I found the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. It has changed my life for the better. I am also grateful for the Bible. It did not turn me away when I found out that Cain and others were cursed by God. I see Joseph Smith as the prophet of God that he was. He did not fake the Book of Mormon, it was given to him by God in the King James English..

What if it wasn't God who gave it to him?

 

[Albion]

Remember, JS was not the only one going about saying that we needed to get back to the original Church of Jesus Christ or that Israelite's had populated the U.S. Lots of people were saying it, so the overarching thought that there were Israelite's in the Americas was not original with JS.

I agree that the nineteenth century was one which saw a powerful religious fad or urge become significant. I refer to the idea of getting back to the ancient church. It produced the Campbellites (Disciples of Christ), the Adventists, the Jehovah's Witnesses, British-Israelism, the Pentecostal movement and its churches, and of course the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

[dzheremi]

It isn't even in King James English. It's an imitation of this elevated 'churchy' style such as you could expect to find in the KJV and other Bibles from earlier eras when such style was actually rather normal (hence people knew things like how to properly decline the appropriate classes of words), but poorly done. I've posted about this before only to have Mormons complain that the source I pointed them to (Richard Packham's website) is the work of an atheist who also says things about the Bible that Christians would disagree with, so how can I view him as a trustworthy source!? (Nevermind the fact that I was pointing out his language studies, and the English language works the same regardless of the personal religious convictions of whoever is using it.)

As someone with a master's degree in Linguistics (not from an LDS-run university), looking into a question like this provides everything I need to know that Mormonism is a sham, but I can understand Mormons not wanting to face up to that fact, and hence treating everything like it's a matter of scholars' personal opinions, about which any two may differ, even though that is very much not the case (there aren't in fact many different views among disinterested linguists concerning the non-existence of 'Reformed Egyptian', or how pronouns worked in KJV-era English, etc. -- these are things that are as definitively known as anything can be); rather, much LDS-promoted work in this area is quite simply not very scholarly to begin with, for a multitude of reasons I've probably spent the equivalent of years addressing here on CF already.

 

[Tra Phull]

I googled the exact title of my thread and read numerous articles that came up, both from LDS and non-LDS sources.

It is apparent that not much was original to JS.

 

[Tra Phull]

The ideas of American Indians being Israelites seems to have been going around before BOM.

I have seen estimates of 18 to 20 chapters of Isaiah being in BOM

 

[Tra Phull]

One site said that 30 per cent of Isaiah is reproduced in BOM

 

[mmksparbud]

Many people say they saw the golden plates, besides the 3 and the 8. So, since you were not around then, I'm not sure you are capable of saying much.

Neither were you, so it is a choice as to whom to believe---so again I say, anyone that says the bible is corrupt and therefore unreliable and they have the truth---is immediately suspect. Any true prophet always leads to the bible, and that is why the God said---
Isa_8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

We test prophets by the bible, not the bible by the prophet--always.

 

[JackRT]

It seems to me the Book of Mormon was written as a fiction in a style that would give it a veneer of authenticity. I am not sure that it was written as a novel or as a deliberate deception but it certainly ended up as a deception.

 

[mmksparbud]

It seems to me the Book of Mormon was written as a fiction in a style that would give it a veneer of authenticity. I am not sure that it was written as a novel or as a deliberate deception but it certainly ended up as a deception.

Some site that the names for these people came from the Apocrypha, It's been years since I read it, and I can't remember what site said that, and they also said that another Mormon described the bible that JS used and it had an apocrypha. Is there anyone that has read it lately that can attest to this or not? It seems to me that JS used a variety f books. And when he did, he used almost identical wording. And in between a lot of yea, verily, exceedingly and it came to pass.

 

[Tra Phull]

The original KJV contained the Apocrypha.

IT CAME TO PASS that KJV s were printed without it, probably to cut down on printing costs.

I seem to remember some exact phrases from New Testament books in portions of the BOM that were allegedly written well before the New Testament books themselves.

Seeing all the stuff that came up from googling the title of my thread just makes me think of JS as more of a con man and charlatan than I already did.

It is even worse than "JS dreamed it all up from his own mind"

He used multiple sources, designating Isaiah, but I feel at times used NT quotes in portions of BOM allegedly written well before NT was written.

 

[Tra Phull]

The Spalding or Spaulding book cannot be dismissed as a source JS might have used.

It's all as weird as THE SALAMANDER LETTER, and just as outrageous.

 

[He is the way]

What if it wasn't God who gave it to him?

I know it wasn't Satan, he is not divided against himself.

 

[He is the way]

The Spalding or Spaulding book cannot be dismissed as a source JS might have used.

It's all as weird as THE SALAMANDER LETTER, and just as outrageous.

The Salamander Letter was written by Mark Hoffman. He is still in prison for murder. Manuscript found by Spaulding is very different from the Book of Mormon. It was lost for a period of time but was later found. It is available here:

Manuscript Found: The Complete Original "Spaulding Manuscript" by Solomon Spaulding

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

And not 1830's American English?

I have read the "rock in the hat" story.

There is a difference between 1769 King James English and 1830's American English. If JS was really "seeing" a "translation" in the hat - what was the purpose of him seeing this outdated English?

My theory is that the whole "translation" stuff is false; that JS made it sound like the KJV so it would "sound holy" - "sound like the Bible" etc.

My purpose is to create awareness among Nicene Christians of how absurd the alleged "translation" process is. If the handful of Mormons here can offer any explanation which will show why the BOM came to be in the language of King James English rather than the 1830's American English, let it come.

I have learned much since 2013 when I first came here as Anto9us. Phoebe and drstevej have brought out much to me, the Mormons themselves have made me see their faith not as some benign variant but rather a true cult of outlandish origins.

So why the King James English and not 1830's American English?
If it was God Almighty driving the "translation" - how did BOM arrive in language from many many decades earlier?

While I'm no fan of BOM, surely the translation can be in any language the translator decides. Translators who know their lunges could translate from original manuscripts into KJ English today if they chose to do so. If that was JS' translation choice then there is no issue. There are wider problems - i.e. with the original manuscripts.

 

[Dansiph]

I know it wasn't Satan, he is not divided against himself.

What do you mean by he is not divided against himself?

 

[He is the way]

What do you mean by he is not divided against himself?

(New Testament | Matthew 12:24 - 26)

24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

Would Satan say this?:

(Book of Mormon | Moroni 7:11 - 19)

11 For behold, a bitter fountain cannot bring forth good water; neither can a good fountain bring forth bitter water; wherefore, a man being a servant of the devil cannot follow Christ; and if he follow Christ he cannot be a servant of the devil.
12 Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually.
13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.
14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.
15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.
16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.
17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.
18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.
19 Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ.

 

[Albion]

It isn't even in King James English. It's an imitation of this elevated 'churchy' style....

That's true. But it's also "punched up" here and there with actual verses taken from the KJV translation of the Bible.

 

[Albion]

I believe the spaulding manuel had some roman soldiers coming to America but that is not an original thought either.

I believe when the spaulding manuel was found, there was a rush to see if any names in the BOM were also found in the sm, but alas, there were none. So except for a coming from the old world to the new world motif, the sm turned out to be a dud for digging up dirt on JS.

No. There are two different Spaulding manuscripts. The one you referred to caused a stir when it was discovered and quite naturally permitted Mormons to point to the storyline about Romans and say it has nothing to do with the theme that's found in the BOM.

However, the other manuscript cannot be dismissed that way.

There is more information here, although I cannot vouch for everything on that page.

Spalding's "Manuscript Found" vs "Manuscript Story"

 

[Tra Phull]

More to the picture
Than meets the eye
Hey, hey, my my

 

[Bruce Leiter]

And not 1830's American English?

I have read the "rock in the hat" story.

There is a difference between 1769 King James English and 1830's American English. If JS was really "seeing" a "translation" in the hat - what was the purpose of him seeing this outdated English?

My theory is that the whole "translation" stuff is false; that JS made it sound like the KJV so it would "sound holy" - "sound like the Bible" etc.

My purpose is to create awareness among Nicene Christians of how absurd the alleged "translation" process is. If the handful of Mormons here can offer any explanation which will show why the BOM came to be in the language of King James English rather than the 1830's American English, let it come.

I have learned much since 2013 when I first came here as Anto9us. Phoebe and drstevej have brought out much to me, the Mormons themselves have made me see their faith not as some benign variant but rather a true cult of outlandish origins.

So why the King James English and not 1830's American English?
If it was God Almighty driving the "translation" - how did BOM arrive in language from many many decades earlier?

I didn't know what you were writing about at first (BOM, JS, "rock in the hat," Nicene Christians). I have other questions of Mormons. The main one is why the Native American oral and written culture has no trace of Jesus' appearance to them after his resurrection. That certainly would have remained in their tradition if the event ever happened.

Also, do they believe that God the Father attained that high status by being very good, that he lives on a planet in outer space, and that he has spirit-children with the heavenly goddess so that they can enter the bodies of babies and eventually return to God.

Do they also believe that God is three Persons but not one God and that we can become gods too if we're very good Mormons?

They should answer those questions for me. Such beliefs, if true, would certainly deter me from becoming one.