LDS If it is directly from God, he would have good Grammar!!!

Daniel Marsh said:

Definition of correct (Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb

1a: to make or set right : AMEND
correct an error
The editor corrected the author's manuscript.
b: COUNTERACT, NEUTRALIZE
correct a harmful tendency
c: to alter or adjust so as to bring to some standard or required condition
correct a lens for spherical aberration
She's having surgery to correct her vision.
2a: to discipline or punish (someone) for some fault or lapse
… I was most rude then. Only a small boy, Sir, and I was corrected for it, I assure you, by my father …
— Rex Ingamells
b: to point out usually for amendment the errors or faults of
spent the day correcting tests
correct adjective
Definition of correct (Entry 2 of 2)
1: conforming to an approved or conventional standard
correct behavior
2: conforming to or agreeing with fact, logic, or known truth
a correct response
3: conforming to a set figure
enclosed the correct return postage
4: conforming to the strict requirements of a specific ideology or set of beliefs or values
environmentally correct
spiritually correct

Definition of CORRECT

Synonyms & Antonyms of correct (Entry 1 of 2)
1being in agreement with the truth or a fact or a standard
a real brainteaser with only one correct solution to it
Synonyms for correct

accurate, bang on [chiefly British], dead-on, exact, good, on-target, precise, proper, right, so, spot-on, true, veracious
Words Related to correct

legitimate, logical, sound, valid
errorless, faultless, flawless, impeccable, inerrant, infallible, letter-perfect, perfect
rigorous, strict, stringent
Phrases Synonymous with correct

on target, on the money
Near Antonyms for correct

defective, faulty, flawed, imperfect
Antonyms for correct

false, improper, inaccurate, incorrect, inexact, off, untrue, wrong
2following the established traditions of refined society and good taste
painfully correct dress for the state dinner at the White House
Synonyms for correct

befitting, de rigueur, decent, decorous, genteel, nice, polite, proper, respectable, seemly
Words Related to correct

acceptable, adequate, satisfactory, tolerable
dress, dressy, formal
dignified, elegant, gracious
priggish, prim, stiff, stuffy
apt, material, relevant
compatible, congenial, harmonious
allowed, authorized, kosher, permitted
Near Antonyms for correct

intolerable, unacceptable, unsatisfactory
casual, grungy, informal
seedy, shabby, tacky
banned, barred, disallowed
forbidden, interdicted, outlawed, prohibited, proscribed
awkward, gauche, ungraceful
Antonyms for correct

improper, inappropriate, incorrect, indecent, indecorous, indelicate, unbecoming, ungenteel, unseemly
3marked by or showing careful attention to set forms and details
the correct method for folding the American flag
Synonyms for correct

ceremonious, decorous, formal, nice, proper, punctilious, starchy, stiff, stiff-necked, stilted
Words Related to correct

sober, solemn, stately
chivalrous, courtly, gallant
genteel, polished, refined
civil, courteous, polite, red-carpet
Near Antonyms for correct

improper, indecorous, unmannerly
discourteous, impolite, rude
Antonyms for correct

casual, easygoing, informal, laid-back, unceremonious
correct verb
Synonyms & Antonyms of correct (Entry 2 of 2)
1to remove errors, defects, deficiencies, or deviations from
more time will be needed to correct the computer program
Synonyms for correct

amend, debug, emend, rectify, red-pencil, reform, remedy
Words Related to correct

redraft, redraw, restyle, revise, rework, rewrite
blue-pencil, cut, shorten
redress, right
ameliorate, better, improve
perfect, polish, touch up
fix, mend, repair
adjust, modulate, regulate
alter, change, modify
Near Antonyms for correct

damage, harm, hurt, impair, injure, mar, spoil
aggravate, worsen
2to balance with an equal force so as to make ineffective
hopefully the young entrepreneur's professionalism will serve to correct his partner's extreme enthusiasm in the eyes of investors
Synonyms for correct

annul, cancel (out), compensate (for), counteract, counterbalance, counterpoise, make up (for), negative, neutralize, offset
Words Related to correct

invalidate, negate, neuter, nullify
atone (for)
outbalance, outweigh, redeem
redress, relieve, remedy
override, overrule
3to inflict a penalty on for a fault or crime
an insensitive boss who liked to correct subordinates in front of their colleagues
Synonyms for correct

castigate, chasten, chastise, discipline, penalize, punish
Words Related to correct

assess, charge, dock, fine, impose, levy, mulct
convict, sentence
condemn, damn, denounce
criticize, keelhaul, rebuke, reprimand, reprove
wreak
Near Antonyms for correct

forfeit
get off, ransom, release
commute, reprieve
absolve, acquit, exculpate, exonerate, vindicate
Antonyms for correct

excuse, pardon, spare
See the Dictionary Definition
Frequently Asked Questions About correct
How is the word correct different from other adjectives like it?
Some common synonyms of correct are accurate, exact, nice, precise, and right. While all these words mean "conforming to fact, standard, or truth," correct usually implies freedom from fault or error.

Thesaurus results for CORRECT

Click to expand...

Most correct is not the same as correct. A person in a crowd that is labeled most correct still may not be correct.

Daniel Marsh said:

Hi Friend, am I mistaken that JS looked at a seer stone in his hat and God somehow displayed the words to be read and write down? Is not God Perfect and All Knowing?
If so, one would expect good grammar. Since, we do not have the gold plates any claim about them is just a good guess. One can make an abridgment using good grammar in one's own language. One doing a translation has a goal of using good understandable translation.

Click to expand...

Well, JS said that everything he wrote down had to be perfect before he could go on to the next part, so how there ended up so many mistakes later is what makes no sense at all to me. What I am saying is something entirely different. God would say something to a prophet and then they would repeat it in their own words. God did not whisper every single word in their ear before they spoke. They said what God said and wrote it down in their own words. Moses was highly educated, but some, like the disciples were not. Esp, Peter. Paul had a far more complex way of writing than Peter, so much so that one disciple said so. Peter and John wrote simpler and more to the point. I am not lucid enough in Greek to know just how well Peter's Greek grammar is. But JS said it had to be perfect before moving on so why was there a need at all for corrections later? And if God was dictating all this so closely---why were the plates needed at all? JS was not translating the plates--he was reading the stones. Or am missing something?

mmksparbud said:

Well, JS said that everything he wrote down had to be perfect before he could go on to the next part, so how there ended up so many mistakes later is what makes no sense at all to me. What I am saying is something entirely different. God would say something to a prophet and then they would repeat it in their own words. God did not whisper every single word in their ear before they spoke. They said what God said and wrote it down in their own words. Moses was highly educated, but some, like the disciples were not. Esp, Peter. Paul had a far more complex way of writing than Peter, so much so that one disciple said so. Peter and John wrote simpler and more to the point. I am not lucid enough in Greek to know just how well Peter's Greek grammar is. But JS said it had to be perfect before moving on so why was there a need at all for corrections later? And if God was dictating all this so closely---why were the plates needed at all? JS was not translating the plates--he was reading the stones. Or am missing something?

Click to expand...

You said: "Well, JS said that everything he wrote down had to be perfect before he could go on to the next part,"

Nope that is a misquote.

Daniel Marsh said:

No, Since God is all knowing He would make corrections. The Bible was translated by humans who are not all knowing and who are not as perfect as God is.

My positions are sound because they are based on the nature of God.
God is All Knowing, Perfect, Omnipresent, etc.,

Click to expand...

So you are saying God would have changed the wording that was on the plates to correct them. Then when the plates were returned we would see that the Book of Mormon did NOT match what was written on the plates. By the way do you believe that the original manuscript of the Bible is without mistakes?

Daniel Marsh said:

There are 23,986 manuscripts. What is the Most Recent Manuscript Count for the New… | Sean McDowell

I am sure scholars are smart enough to figure out where God made corrections and compare the rest with the Book of Mormon.

"Norman Geisler and William Nix have mentioned several ways that a scribe might accidentally change the biblical text, including: (1) omissions or repetitions of letters, words, or lines; (2) reversals (transpositions) of letters or words; (3) divisions of words in the wrong places (since words in the early manuscripts were not divided by spaces); (4) errors of hearing (such as when scribes copied the Scriptures by listening to someone read them); (5) trusting in memory instead of relying on exactly what the text says; (6) errors of judgment (possibly caused by insufficient lighting or poor eyesight); (7) poor penmanship; etc. (1986, pp. 469-475).

The Science of Textual Criticism weeds out the mistakes. None, of the mistakes change the theological meaning of the Bible. A doctrine is defined from more one text.

Good Night,
Daniel

Click to expand...

It is my belief that there is not a book in the English language that is error free. For one thing the English language itself creates misunderstandings because it is inadequate compared to the language of God:

(New Testament | 2 Corinthians 12:4)

4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

There will be NO misunderstandings in the world to come.

He is the way said:

It is my belief that there is not a book in the English language that is error free.

Click to expand...

Good thing the Holy Scriptures (unlike the Mormon books) were not revealed in English, then.

For one thing the English language itself creates misunderstandings because it is inadequate compared to the language of God:

(New Testament | 2 Corinthians 12:4)

4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Click to expand...

How does this have anything to do with the English language in particular in any way, shape, or form when the epistle was originally written in Greek, 6-7 centuries before the earliest documented evidence of even Old English, which is itself another 7-8 centuries before the emergence of the Early Modern English that the BOM fetishizes?

There will be NO misunderstandings in the world to come.

Click to expand...

This is a meaningless statement, since this thread is about the BOM, which is around now. We don't need to wait until some future world is realized in order to evaluate it.

He is the way said:

You said: "Well, JS said that everything he wrote down had to be perfect before he could go on to the next part,"

Nope that is a misquote.

Click to expand...

And what is the original quote?

dzheremi said:

Good thing the Holy Scriptures (unlike the Mormon books) were not revealed in English, then.



How does this have anything to do with the English language in particular in any way, shape, or form when the epistle was originally written in Greek, 6-7 centuries before the earliest documented evidence of even Old English, which is itself another 7-8 centuries before the emergence of the Early Modern English that the BOM fetishizes?



This is a meaningless statement, since this thread is about the BOM, which is around now. We don't need to wait until some future world is realized in order to evaluate it.

Click to expand...

The mistakes in the Book of Mormon are not the mistakes of God, they are the mistakes of man. It is the same with the Bible. The Koine Greek used in the New testament and the Hebrew in the Old Testament are not perfect languages. These languages did nor even have punctuation or capitalization. That is why there is still disputations concerning the punctuation of the Bible. That being said the doctrine of Jesus Christ is LOVE and that is NOT going to change.

mmksparbud said:

And what is the original quote?

Click to expand...

"The manuscript that Joseph Smith dictated to Oliver Cowdery and others is known today as the original manuscript, about 28 percent of which still survives.8 This manuscript corroborates Joseph Smith’s statements that the manuscript was written within a short time frame and that it was dictated from another language. For example, it includes errors that suggest the scribe heard words incorrectly rather than misread words copied from another manuscript.9 In addition, some grammatical constructions that are more characteristic of Near Eastern languages than English appear in the original manuscript, suggesting that the base language of the translation was not English.10

Unlike most dictated drafts, the original manuscript was considered by Joseph Smith to be, in substance, a final product. To assist in the publication of the book, Oliver Cowdery made a handwritten copy of the original manuscript. This copy is known today as the printer’s manuscript. Because Joseph Smith did not call for punctuation, such as periods, commas, or question marks, as he dictated, such marks are not in the original manuscript. The typesetter later inserted punctuation marks when he prepared the text for the printer.11 With the exceptions of punctuation, formatting, other elements of typesetting, and minor adjustments required to correct copying and scribal errors, the dictation copy became the text of the first printed edition of the book.12"

From: Book of Mormon Translation

"The Seer Stones
The scribes mentioned at least two types of seer stones: the spectacles, or interpreters, and one or more additional seer stones that Joseph had found.[15]

Spectacles, or interpreters
Joseph explained that Moroni, “the same heavenly messenger” that delivered the plates, also gave him a device that held two stones, which Joseph referred to as “spectacles,” and a breastplate to hold the spectacles.[16] (For more about this story, see chapter 2 herein.) Joseph’s description of the stones as “spectacles” led to a misunderstanding of the way the stones actually functioned, according to witnesses.[17] The spectacles were simply two seer stones bound together like glasses without the earpieces, though they were not intended to sit on the bridge of a person’s nose or wrap around the user’s ears. The spectacles were larger than typical glasses.[18] Though most glasses are about six inches from one side to the other, Harris explained that the spectacles were about “eight inches” long.[19]

In the fall of 1830, Cowdery described the interpreters as “two transparent stones in the form of spectacles thro which the translator looked on the engraving & afterwards put his face into a hat & the interpretation then flowed into his mind.”[20] In 1831 Cowdery testified under oath that Joseph Smith “found with the plates, from which he translated the book, two transparent stones, resembling glass, set in silver bows” and “that by looking at these, he was able to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters, which were engraven on the plates.”[21] One of Cowdery’s earliest converts in Ohio wrote, “In the last part of October, 1830, four men appeared here . . . with a book, which they said contained what was engraven on gold plates found . . . about three years ago by a man named Joseph Smith Jr. who had translated it by looking into a stone or two stones, when put into a dark place, which stones he said were found in the box with the plates.”[22] He explained that Cowdery had said, “While [Joseph] looked through the stone spectacles another sat by and wrote what he told them.”[23] These statements can be compared with a newspaper article, not associated with Oliver Cowdery but published just a few weeks after the translation work was finished in June 1829. In this article, Jonathan Hadley, one of the printers Joseph Smith approached in Palmyra to print the Book of Mormon, claimed that the “very illiterate” Joseph told him the plates were found with a “huge pair of Spectacles,” and that “By placing the Spectacles in a hat, and looking into it, Smith could (he said so, at least,) interpret these characters.”[24]

Whether this report refers to Joseph’s use of the Urim and Thummim in 1829 or to what was done in 1828 before Oliver’s time is not certain, but it could refer to both. Drawing similarities between these stones and two stones that constituted the biblical Urim and Thummim, Joseph and others eventually called the Book of Mormon stones Urim and Thummim.[25] Though Oliver Cowdery later used the Book of Mormon term “interpreters,” it is not found in many other accounts, and the term “spectacles” was later used interchangeably with Urim and Thummim.[26] William W. Phelps’s article in the January 1833 issue of The Evening and the Morning Star exemplifies the use and confusion of these interchangeable terms. It claimed that the Book of Mormon “was translated by the gift and power of God, by an unlearned man, through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles—(known, perhaps, in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim).”[27]

Other seer stones
Martin Harris saw Joseph Smith use the Urim and Thummim, but he also saw Joseph use a single stone. Harris explained that Joseph Smith “possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone,”[28] which is understandable because the spectacles may have been somewhat awkward to use, making the long hours of translation more difficult.[29]

Harris claimed that he knew how Joseph was translating. He explained that by the “aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by [Martin], and when finished he would say, ‘Written,’ and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected.” Harris was apparently an active participant in the translation, and his audible exchanges with Joseph made it apparent to him that words were appearing on the seer stone or stones in the hat. Harris believed that this process eliminated the possibility of any volition on the part of Joseph Smith. Joseph did not determine what was included in the text of the Book of Mormon; the translation apparently came directly from that which appeared on the seer stones.[30]

Emma Smith began transcribing again for Joseph Smith in the fall of 1828 and early 1829, but it is unknown what she wrote down for Joseph at this time. Emma wrote to Emma Pilgrim in 1870 that Joseph first “translated by the use of the Urim and Thummim [i.e., spectacles or interpreters], and that was the part that Martin Harris lost [the book of Lehi], after that he [Joseph Smith] used a small stone, not exactly black, but rather a dark color.”[31] Historical documents do not allow us to conclude whether Emma was speaking from actual knowledge or from supposition when she suggested that Joseph Smith carried out the remainder of the translation with this brown stone. She was not a scribe during the period from April to June 1829, but she was in the same house when the translation was taking place.

Because of Emma’s statement about the brown stone, some historians have concluded that Joseph Smith used a single seer stone exclusively during this period of the Book of Mormon translation, but Joseph likely used another seer stone at that time as well. For example, interviews with Cowdery or speeches by him,[32] as well as one very early account close to the time when Oliver worked as Joseph’s scribe, mention the interpreters or Urim and Thummim, which suggests their importance during the time Oliver scribed for Joseph.

Use of a hat to block ambient light
Significantly, the use of a hat appears in important witness statements relating to translation in Harmony (Emma Smith, Martin Harris),[33] as well as in Fayette (David Whitmer, Elizabeth Whitmer Cowdery).[34] In fact, before the printing of the Book of Mormon had even begun, in the earliest known account of the translation of the plates, the spectacles were described as being used in conjunction with a hat. The mention of the hat Joseph used often causes modern interpreters to relate the translation with magic. Yet the hat itself is as insignificant to the process as the table Oliver Cowdery used to write on during the translation. It was simply a tool that Joseph apparently used to block out all extraneous light.

According to several accounts, when Joseph used his hat, he began the process by placing the stone in the hat, in order to read the words that would appear on the stone. Joseph then dictated the words he saw to his scribe. Joseph Knight Sr., who provided financial support for Joseph Smith during the translation, recounted, “Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes” so that he could see the words a sentence at a time.[35] David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, gave many interviews about the translation between 1878 and 1888. Though he never claimed to have actually seen the words on the stone himself, his statements often spoke of the words appearing on something resembling parchment.[36] His statements typically testified with words to the effect that “Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.”[37]"

From: Firsthand Witness Accounts of the Translation Process | Religious Studies Center

He is the way said:

The mistakes in the Book of Mormon are not the mistakes of God, they are the mistakes of man.

Click to expand...

Well duh. Nothing in the BOM is from God either way, so it follows that mistakes in the BOM are not from God.

It is the same with the Bible. The Koine Greek used in the New testament and the Hebrew in the Old Testament are not perfect languages.

Click to expand...

The difference is that no Christian believes that they are, unlike Mormon beliefs about the miraculous, restorative nature of the BOM and the wider Mormon narrative built around it.

These languages did nor even have punctuation or capitalization.

Click to expand...

so what
neither punctuation nor capitalization are necessary
see what i mean
this is a non point if i've ever seen one

A great many languages around the world use writing systems which do not have case distinction, such as most (all?) of the South Asian non-Latin scripts (Thai, Lao, Burmese, etc.), most of the Native Middle Eastern/North African scripts (Coptic, like Greek, only started distinguishing between the two fairly late in its life) like Arabic, Syriac, Neo-Tifinagh (used to write the Berber languages in Morocco since 2003); many of the African scripts that existed outside of the historical Arab/Arabized Berber North (e.g., the Ge'ez script in Ethiopia and Eritrea; the Vai syllabary in Liberia; the Osmanya script in Somalia, etc.), etc.

There's nothing wrong or defective or even really all that noteworthy about not having an upper/lower case distinction.

That is why there is still disputations concerning the punctuation of the Bible.

Click to expand...

Not really. There's the different numbering of the Psalms in Western and Eastern Christian traditions (which is not about punctuation, but about different canons of the OT, with the East relying on the LXX and the West relying on the Masoretic text), and the dispute about the Johannine Comma, which despite the name is not about a comma itself (so it is also not about punctuation), but about the inclusion or non-inclusion of a pair of clauses that are found in some manuscripts of the Gospel and not in others (in 1 John 5:7-8, when present).

Did you have in mind something else in mind?

That being said the doctrine of Jesus Christ is LOVE and that is NOT going to change.

Click to expand...

Uh huh. Why don't you say it again -- I don't think I read it the first 500,000,000 times you abused the word "love" by yelling it into the void because you have no actual point to make. Do you work for that company makes the candy hearts for Valentine's Day or something? I don't really understand why you're constantly yelling "LOVE" at everyone even when it doesn't mean anything in the context of the discussion we're having, except maybe to prime us to buy whatever you're selling...

dzheremi said:

Well duh. Nothing in the BOM is from God either way, so it follows that mistakes in the BOM are not from God.



The difference is that no Christian believes that they are, unlike Mormon beliefs about the miraculous, restorative nature of the BOM and the wider Mormon narrative built around it.



so what
neither punctuation nor capitalization are necessary
see what i mean
this is a non point if i've ever seen one

A great many languages around the world use writing systems which do not have case distinction, such as most (all?) of the South Asian non-Latin scripts (Thai, Lao, Burmese, etc.), most of the Native Middle Eastern/North African scripts (Coptic, like Greek, only started distinguishing between the two fairly late in its life) like Arabic, Syriac, Neo-Tifinagh (used to write the Berber languages in Morocco since 2003); many of the African scripts that existed outside of the historical Arab/Arabized Berber North (e.g., the Ge'ez script in Ethiopia and Eritrea; the Vai syllabary in Liberia; the Osmanya script in Somalia, etc.), etc.

There's nothing wrong or defective or even really all that noteworthy about not having an upper/lower case distinction.



Not really. There's the different numbering of the Psalms in Western and Eastern Christian traditions (which is not about punctuation, but about different canons of the OT, with the East relying on the LXX and the West relying on the Masoretic text), and the dispute about the Johannine Comma, which despite the name is not about a comma itself (so it is also not about punctuation), but about the inclusion or non-inclusion of a pair of clauses that are found in some manuscripts of the Gospel and not in others (in 1 John 5:7-8, when present).

Did you have in mind something else in mind?



Uh huh. Why don't you say it again -- I don't think I read it the first 500,000,000 times you abused the word "love" by yelling it into the void because you have no actual point to make. Do you work for that company makes the candy hearts for Valentine's Day or something? I don't really understand why you're constantly yelling "LOVE" at everyone even when it doesn't mean anything in the context of the discussion we're having, except maybe to prime us to buy whatever you're selling...

Click to expand...

You said: "Nothing in the BOM is from God either way, so it follows that mistakes in the BOM are not from God."

Really?:
(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 15:20 - 22)

20 Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
21 Wo unto the wise in their own eyes and prudent in their own sight!
22 Wo unto the mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink;
(Old Testament | Isaiah 5:20 - 22)

20 ¶ Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
22 Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:

That is not from God? Then who is it from?

You said:
see what i mean
this is a non point if i've ever seen one

Didn't you see that you used a apostrophe? So punctuation must be important. By the way most of the errors in the Book of Mormon were punctuation and capitalization. Most of these were typesetting errors.

I don't use the word LOVE carelessly, God is LOVE:

(New Testament | 1 John 4:8)

8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

He is the way said:

You said: "Nothing in the BOM is from God either way, so it follows that mistakes in the BOM are not from God."

Really?:
(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 15:20 - 22)

20 Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
21 Wo unto the wise in their own eyes and prudent in their own sight!
22 Wo unto the mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink;
(Old Testament | Isaiah 5:20 - 22)

20 ¶ Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
22 Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:

That is not from God? Then who is it from?

Click to expand...

The fact that it's literally copied from Isaiah into the BOM is not a credit to the BOM. Think about it logically: if I was to copy some very famous piece of American historical oratory -- say, Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech -- and place it into a fictional book that made all kinds of ridiculous claims about King and his times and those around him, would it be at all reasonable to answer criticism about the distortions and inaccuracies found in the resulting work by pointing to his words that I have copied into it, as though that is a kind of shield against the criticism that the book I have authored carries nothing of the spirit nor the reality of his life and works? No, of course not, because any dope may copy any thing into any work, and thereby produce a literary mongrel which they can claim has any ultimate source that they want (heavenly or otherwise). This is why, for instance, Christians do not line up to bestow the honor of prophethood upon the Islamic false prophet Muhammad despite the fact that he -- like his spiritual child Joseph Smith Jr. -- copied many Christian and Jewish apocryphal tales into his Qur'an, remaking their personages and theologies to suit his religion's distinctive prophetology.

And I'm going to guess that you wouldn't recognize him either on that account, despite the existence in his book of chapters on Mary, Joseph, and many stories of Moses, Adam, and other Biblical figures that you are likely to recognize by name if you know the Bible. So we treat the BOM no differently: it gets no credit for liberally stealing for its own purposes.

So again: Yes, there is nothing of God in the BOM. There are some things it steals from the Bible, but that does not make it (the BOM) of God so much as it makes it obvious that the BOM is pathetically trying and failing to model itself after the OT, which everyone already knows by looking at the way it is presented linguistically (the actual topic of this thread).

You said:
see what i mean
this is a non point if i've ever seen one

Didn't you see that you used a apostrophe? So punctuation must be important.

Click to expand...

Oh, cool, you noticed that...then I guess you also realized that you were wrong when you claimed that Hebrew and Greek do not have punctuation, as they both have forms of apostrophes, though they don't always perform the same functions as English's apostrophes do (the Hebrew dagash seems to have several functions, as you can see at the link).

Besides, since you're choosing to be silly, I think a case can be made very easily from just poking around this website that the apostrophe is one of English's least understood, most misused, and quite often forgotten punctuation marks. So I'm 100% certain that you would've been able to puzzle out what I meant even if I hadn't used an apostrophe, as most everyone who is minimally literate in the English language has at least some vague sense of when and why an apostrophe should be used, even if their sense is often incorrect:

By the way most of the errors in the Book of Mormon were punctuation and capitalization. Most of these were typesetting errors.

Click to expand...

You very well may be correct numerically (there may be more typsetting errors than grammatical errors). I don't know or care, because the ultimate problem with the BOM is not found there, but in the discrepancy between what its believers claim it to be (a miraculously translated book, translated by the power of God from golden plates engraved with Reformed Egyptian characters, etc.) and what it actually shows itself to be (a 19th century piece of religious fiction that attempts to ape the KJV but does so incredibly poorly, and comes off sounding really ridiculous and confused to anyone who knows the difference between a modern person's attempt to sound ancient and an actual ancient document).

I don't use the word LOVE carelessly

Click to expand...

Yes you do. I don't think I'm the only one of this opinion, either, but go ahead and post as you wish. Just know that I tune it out as much as I can whenever you start on your LOVE-a-thon, because it generally has nothing to do with what we're talking about, and comes off more like a crutch than anything else. Like the guy who gets stuck on a particular word and thinks that using it will make him sound like a really learned man:


You should ascertain from this comparison that repeating the word LOVE in all caps ad nauseam does nothing to delineate what LOVE has to do with topics such as the BOM's grammatical missteps.

(New Testament | 1 John 4:8)

8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree.

With that out of the way, how about this as a guiding principle of our posting:

But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.' For whatever is more than these is from the evil one. (Matthew 5:37)

In other words, speak (or in this case, write) in a way that makes your meaning clear, rather than speaking in a cagey way by appealing to softer topics that don't actually address what is being talked about, but do plenty to make people who continue to disagree with you seem like they're disagreeing with the point of the verses you're posting (rather than simply pointing out that they're off topic and a distraction from the issue we're actually discussing).

dzheremi said:

The fact that it's literally copied from Isaiah into the BOM is not a credit to the BOM. Think about it logically: if I was to copy some very famous piece of American historical oratory -- say, Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech -- and place it into a fictional book that made all kinds of ridiculous claims about King and his times and those around him, would it be at all reasonable to answer criticism about the distortions and inaccuracies found in the resulting work by pointing to his words that I have copied into it, as though that is a kind of shield against the criticism that the book I have authored carries nothing of the spirit nor the reality of his life and works? No, of course not, because any dope may copy any thing into any work, and thereby produce a literary mongrel which they can claim has any ultimate source that they want (heavenly or otherwise). This is why, for instance, Christians do not line up to bestow the honor of prophethood upon the Islamic false prophet Muhammad despite the fact that he -- like his spiritual child Joseph Smith Jr. -- copied many Christian and Jewish apocryphal tales into his Qur'an, remaking their personages and theologies to suit his religion's distinctive prophetology.

And I'm going to guess that you wouldn't recognize him either on that account, despite the existence in his book of chapters on Mary, Joseph, and many stories of Moses, Adam, and other Biblical figures that you are likely to recognize by name if you know the Bible. So we treat the BOM no differently: it gets no credit for liberally stealing for its own purposes.

So again: Yes, there is nothing of God in the BOM. There are some things it steals from the Bible, but that does not make it (the BOM) of God so much as it makes it obvious that the BOM is pathetically trying and failing to model itself after the OT, which everyone already knows by looking at the way it is presented linguistically (the actual topic of this thread).



Oh, cool, you noticed that...then I guess you also realized that you were wrong when you claimed that Hebrew and Greek do not have punctuation, as they both have forms of apostrophes, though they don't always perform the same functions as English's apostrophes do (the Hebrew dagash seems to have several functions, as you can see at the link).

Besides, since you're choosing to be silly, I think a case can be made very easily from just poking around this website that the apostrophe is one of English's least understood, most misused, and quite often forgotten punctuation marks. So I'm 100% certain that you would've been able to puzzle out what I meant even if I hadn't used an apostrophe, as most everyone who is minimally literate in the English language has at least some vague sense of when and why an apostrophe should be used, even if their sense is often incorrect:





You very well may be correct numerically (there may be more typsetting errors than grammatical errors). I don't know or care, because the ultimate problem with the BOM is not found there, but in the discrepancy between what its believers claim it to be (a miraculously translated book, translated by the power of God from golden plates engraved with Reformed Egyptian characters, etc.) and what it actually shows itself to be (a 19th century piece of religious fiction that attempts to ape the KJV but does so incredibly poorly, and comes off sounding really ridiculous and confused to anyone who knows the difference between a modern person's attempt to sound ancient and an actual ancient document).



Yes you do. I don't think I'm the only one of this opinion, either, but go ahead and post as you wish. Just know that I tune it out as much as I can whenever you start on your LOVE-a-thon, because it generally has nothing to do with what we're talking about, and comes off more like a crutch than anything else. Like the guy who gets stuck on a particular word and thinks that using it will make him sound like a really learned man:


You should ascertain from this comparison that repeating the word LOVE in all caps ad nauseam does nothing to delineate what LOVE has to do with topics such as the BOM's grammatical missteps.




Yeah, I agree.

With that out of the way, how about this as a guiding principle of our posting:

But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.' For whatever is more than these is from the evil one. (Matthew 5:37)

In other words, speak (or in this case, write) in a way that makes your meaning clear, rather than speaking in a cagey way by appealing to softer topics that don't actually address what is being talked about, but do plenty to make people who continue to disagree with you seem like they're disagreeing with the point of the verses you're posting (rather than simply pointing out that they're off topic and a distraction from the issue we're actually discussing).

Click to expand...

You believe that Joseph Smith copied the Bible, however Joseph Smith did not have a Bible with him when he dictated the Book of Mormon. All he had with him for much of the time while dictating the Book of Mormon was a hat and a seer stone. The Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ, that He lives. That He suffered for our sins. That He wants us to follow Him in truth and righteousness. The Book of Mormon teaches us correct principles and doctrine. The doctrine of the Book of Mormon agrees with the doctrine of the Bible.

He is the way said:

You believe that Joseph Smith copied the Bible, however Joseph Smith did not have a Bible with him when he dictated the Book of Mormon. All he had with him for much of the time while dictating the Book of Mormon was a hat and a seer stone.

Click to expand...

Yeah, because nobody can ever have memorized anything. Anyone who's ever recited anything word for word had to either have a book with it in front of them or some magic 'seer stones' and a hat.

Meanwhile, back in reality, Cantor Gad Lewis -- who is blind -- recites everything from memory, including texts which are longer than the Isaiah portion you've highlighted, such as Psalm 151 (a Psalm found in the LXX, but not the Masoretic text):


And, y'know, leads the choir in entire services like the midnight praises (hours of Psalms, canticles, and other prayers, again obviously all from memory):


I don't think it's a miracle that this happens, by the way. People can memorize quite a lot when they come from cultures where it is valued that they do so (as has been the case for most of human history), or if they have other motivations for doing so (personal piety, etc.) -- all without the aid of magic spectacles, rocks, or hats. This particular cantor is far from the only person to have shown such skill despite his inability to read. The greatest Coptic cantor of modern times, Mikhail Girgis El Batanouny (1873-1957), was also blind, and trained many generations of cantors in the traditional melodies of Coptic chant, either personally or through the treasury of recordings that was left to the Library of Congress upon his passing.

Given examples such as these, it's basically impossible for me to see Joseph Smith's insertion of portions of Isaiah into his own book as any kind of miracle or confirmation of some supposed truth found in the BOM. It's nothing of the kind.

The Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ, that He lives. That He suffered for our sins. That He wants us to follow Him in truth and righteousness. The Book of Mormon teaches us correct principles and doctrine. The doctrine of the Book of Mormon agrees with the doctrine of the Bible.

Click to expand...

These are all your opinions as a Mormon, and exactly the opinions we would expect you to have. That's okay. I just don't agree with any of them and find them to be wrong, as Christ's incarnation, life, preaching, death, and resurrection are not things to be 'shared' with weak replacement religions borne of the fever dreams or machinations of self-proclaimed prophets who bring forth other gospels which they seek to entice Christians to follow other gods of the false prophets' making, as is definitely the case with Mormonism, and will always be the case no matter how much you repeat "Jesus Christ", "Love", "God", "Bible", etc. These are not magic words that you can just say and we will fall all over ourselves to follow Joseph Smith as surely as he followed the angels he imagined himself to have received revelation from. Thankfully we do not live in as religiously and culturally isolated a time as Joseph Smith and those around him did. We can and ought to compare what we he brought to what we have been given by our mothers and fathers in the faith, and when that is done, 100% of the time the spiritually, Biblically, historically, patristically, and prayerfully well-rooted Christian of every particular type finds much at variance with our religion in the message of Joseph Smith and the other Mormon leaders, and it is not due to any failing on the part of any of these diverse sources. It is because at its root Joseph Smith's message and hence his religion comes from some place other than the revelation of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the One God we bow down to in worship. It is Joseph's private revelation from some beings he claimed were "God the Father and Jesus" (at least in some versions of his story), which he submitted to no established church of any kind (in contradiction of the example of St. Paul, who went to meet the disciples, as recorded in Acts 21), and on the word of that supposed vision he established his own 'church' by which his doctrine -- not the doctrine of Christianity -- would be preached in lieu of the faith delivered once for all to the saints.

There's nothing for the Christian to rejoice in in that. It's really quite a tragedy, when we consider the ~16 million who are on the rolls of the LDS religion who have been lied to regarding exactly what kind of organization they are involved in. They are told it is not only a church when it isn't that, but even that it is the Church established by Jesus Christ, when it clearly isn't that either. Lord have mercy.