What's so bad about the Book of Mormon?

Ironhold · Jun 2, 2015

RhaegarTargaryen said:
it is insane to think that there was some kind of hybrid Hebrew-Egyptian language in common use.

The BoM itself is the only instance of this hybrid system in use, raising the prospect that the people who kept the record used it exclusively for this purpose.

And I'll request that you please be more polite about matters in the future.

drstevej · Jun 2, 2015

Ironhold said:
The BoM itself is the only instance of this hybrid system in use, raising the prospect that the people who kept the record used it exclusively for this purpose.

Or Joe made it all up like the Book of Abraham con job.

RhaegarTargaryen · Jun 2, 2015

drstevej said:
Or Joe made it all up like the Book of Abraham con job.

Jane_the_Bane · Jun 2, 2015

Ironhold said:
Ever do translation work?

Funny you should ask.
Yes.
Professionally.
See, my native language is German. I've got an M.A. in English literature and Finno-Ugric languages, and am currently in the process of finishing up my PhD-thesis in English literature and cultural studies.

And looking at the Book of Mormon from my professional background, I do not see a failed translation from "reformed Egyptian" (a non-existent language). I see a badly written attempt at imitating the King James Bible, including all the sorts of errors you'd expect a cult leader in the backwaters of America in the 1800s to make.

This isn't Martin Luther translating "palm fronds" as "fir boughs". This is a fraud cobbling together a fake history of a prehistoric Jewish colony in America that doesn't bear even the slightest amount of scrutiny before turning out to be completely fabricated.

Ironhold · Jun 2, 2015

Jane_the_Bane said:
including all the sorts of errors you'd expect a cult leader in the backwaters of America in the 1800s to make.

Like what?

Jane_the_Bane · Jun 3, 2015

Ironhold said:
Like what?

Seriously? We've been going over this for more than thirty pages. Do you want me to repeat it all?

1. Trying to mimic the language of a well-known, venerated religious text in order to give your creation the whiff of respectability and holiness by association (and failing at it).
2. Telling ignorant European settlers in the 1800s that black skin was in fact a divine curse (cf. 2 Nephi 5:21), catering directly to the most common sentiments among the populace.
3. "Reformed Egyptian". We're not dealing with mistranslations here. What Joseph Smith gave us was a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-and-bull story that relies on a total ignorance of Pre-Columbian America.

smaneck · Jun 3, 2015

Jane_the_Bane said:
Seriously? We've been going over this for more than thirty pages. Do you want me to repeat it all?
1. Trying to mimic the language of a well-known, venerated religious text in order to give your creation the whiff of respectability and holiness by association (and failing at it).

The use of King James English is no indication of whether or not the Book of Mormon was authentic. Read the Sacred Books of the East all of which were translated in the 19th century. They used the same language. It doesn't mean they weren't actually translations.

Ironhold · Jun 3, 2015

Jane_the_Bane said:
2. Telling ignorant European settlers in the 1800s that black skin was in fact a divine curse (cf. 2 Nephi 5:21), catering directly to the most common sentiments among the populace.

JS' own personal working notes for a revision have "white" and "black" changed to "pure" and "impure". Although the use of the words as synonyms was fairly common back then (Conrad's Heart of Darkness relies on it), enough people were not aware of this that JS added it to the list.

And yes, a revised edition was published circa 1840; many of the "thousands of revisions" that critics of the church claim were made to the text over the years actually date back to this edition. Sadly, JS' death and the forced flight to Utah meant that for some years the "regular" edition was the only one in print as the only remaining printing press was only using the "regular" edution.

drstevej · Jun 3, 2015

Ironhold said:
JS' own personal working notes for a revision have "white" and "black" changed to "pure" and "impure".

Pure skin?
Impure skin?

So LDS deity gave them zits?

LoAmmi · Jun 3, 2015

drstevej said:
Pure skin?
Impure skin?

So LDS deity gave them zits?

Probably would be better if clean/unclean was used, to be honest. But, that would also require some knowledge over what clean and unclean is and what it takes to become clean....

Theway · Jun 3, 2015

drstevej said:
Pure skin?
Impure skin?

So LDS deity gave them zits?

That's just it... It had nothing to do with one's actual skin or color.
Just like being "stiff necked" has nothing to do with your neck, or being stiff.
But then this is what critics are reduced to, kindergarten playground taunts.

Ironhold · Jun 3, 2015

drstevej said:
Pure skin?
Impure skin?

So LDS deity gave them zits?

Seriously?

You're reading things into the text again.

BigDaddy4 · Jun 3, 2015

Ironhold said:
JS' own personal working notes for a revision have "white" and "black" changed to "pure" and "impure". Although the use of the words as synonyms was fairly common back then (Conrad's Heart of Darkness relies on it), enough people were not aware of this that JS added it to the list.

And yes, a revised edition was published circa 1840; many of the "thousands of revisions" that critics of the church claim were made to the text over the years actually date back to this edition. Sadly, JS' death and the forced flight to Utah meant that for some years the "regular" edition was the only one in print as the only remaining printing press was only using the "regular" edution.

Which is just laughable that this is considered a "divine translation" of non-existant texts. Did this "supreme being" really say "white" and "black", or did it say "pure" and "impure"? That some other work "relies" on it is meaningless.

BigDaddy4 · Jun 3, 2015

Theway said:
That's just it... It had nothing to do with one's actual skin or color.
Just like being "stiff necked" has nothing to do with your neck, or being stiff.
But then this is what critics are reduced to, kindergarten playground taunts.

Wow, the mental gymnastics you guys try to go through to explain away the warts of your church's history... Are you speaking as an authoritative "prophet, seer, or revelator" that it had nothing to do with skin color?

skylark1 · Jun 3, 2015

Theway said:
That's just it... It had nothing to do with one's actual skin or color.
Just like being "stiff necked" has nothing to do with your neck, or being stiff.
But then this is what critics are reduced to, kindergarten playground taunts.

It hasn't just been critics who have interpreted the Book of Mormon as speaking of a skin of blackness as being skin that darkened. Here's one of the passages:

2 Nephi 5
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

Theway, I think that what I objected to in your post isn't that you choose to interpret this as having nothing to do with actual skin color, but that you seem to be equating someone who isn't LDS who interprets it as skin color as being critical and taunting. There have been numerous LDS leaders and writers who have interpreted this passage as meaning actual skin color changing. However, my impression is that in recent years the LDS Church has been moving away from this interpretation.

Here are some quotes of LDS who equate this with skin color:

Symbolic of the withdrawal of the Spirit from their lives, a “skin of blackness”[2] came upon the rebellious Laman, Lemuel, their families, and those sons and daughters of Ishmael who chose to affiliate with them (2 Nephi 5:21). There can be no question but that their altered skin color was a miraculous act of God; it cannot be understood in purely metaphoric terms, nor as being nothing more than the natural consequence of prolonged exposure to the sun. Nephi was explicit that “the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them” (2 Nephi 5:21; emphasis added).

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-second-nephi-doctrinal-structure/7-lamanite-mark

"You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation ...When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people"

Journal of Discourses 7:336

I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today… The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos.

Spencer Kimball, http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=1091&era=yes

For Elder Hunter, the change in the skin color is absolutely physical and remains a distinction throughout Book of Mormon history. He provides no explanation for how this alteration occurs, other than to note that it comes through God. Rodney Turner, LDS professor of religion, attributes this pigmentation change to God’s direct and miraculous action:

Symbolic of the withdrawal of the Spirit from their lives, a “skin of blackness” came upon the rebellious Laman, Lemuel, their families, and those sons and daughters of Ishmael who chose to affiliate with them (2 Ne. 5:21). There can be no question but that their altered skin color was a miraculous act of God; it cannot be understood in purely metaphoric terms, nor as being nothing more than the natural consequence of prolonged exposure to the sun.4 (emphasis mine)

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspecti...-the-book-of-mormon-mean-by-skin-of-blackness

On December 6, 2013, the LDS Church released a statement that includes the following:

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.24

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood

I acknowledge that this is the current doctrine of the LDS church. However, when others apply a literal interpretation of skin of darkness in the BoM, I think that there are valid reasons why they have done so, and would not necessarily equate that with a playground taunt.

RhaegarTargaryen · Jun 3, 2015

Ironhold said:
Seriously?

You're reading things into the text again.

Oh, the sweet, sweet irony!

RhaegarTargaryen · Jun 3, 2015

Hey, btw, the first part of the translation of the Book of the Divine RhaegarTargaryen is finished:

Ahem...

"Verily, I say unto ye that I am Prince Huuglibuugli of Kopation VII, and this be the tale of how I did chose the pure, noble RhaegarTargaryen to reign over all of the planet which its inhabitants do call "Earth", and how I did endow him with great powers to cause fluffy bunnies to float down from the skies when he so desires, but also to cause the underwear of unbelievers to catch fire!"

Zyxifloxian is a hard language to translate, so that's as far as I've gotten. Now...everyone..as you can clearly see, I am to be the ruler of the Earth so you might as well join me now! There's a special offer now: Only $50,000,000 for YOUR ticket to the new golden age with Earth as part of the Zyxifloxian Empire with me as its viceroy.
Well, you can get in for as little as $100,000, but that'll mean eternity as a slave, and who wants that?

smaneck · Jun 3, 2015

Theway said:
That's just it... It had nothing to do with one's actual skin or color.
Just like being "stiff necked" has nothing to do with your neck, or being stiff.
But then this is what critics are reduced to, kindergarten playground taunts.

But for decades Mormons themselves understood these texts as referring to actual skin color. I'm glad they have now repudiated it, but we can't pretend it wasn't there.
I looked up the passage from 2 Nephi 5 and found a very different problem with a passage just a few verses above that. It talks about being taught to use brass, iron and steel. The problem? There is no evidence of brass, iron or steel used in the Americas prior to Columbus.

Theway · Jun 3, 2015

smaneck said:
But for decades Mormons themselves understood these texts as referring to actual skin color. I'm glad they have now repudiated it, but we can't pretend it wasn't there.

The Church is not just "now" repudiating it, Joseph Smith himself changed it back in the 1840 version in order to better reflect the actual meaning. However because the subsequent versions followed the European version, it wasn't until recently that the Church inserted all the changes and clarifications that Joseph Smith had originally made. Most people back then (and even today) were not aware that he made the clarifications.
But it would still be correct had he not of changed anything. As I stated before, if someone in the future was to translate our idioms without context into their language, they would have a hard time with a few of our figures of speach. Even simple things like mankind, stiff necked, or dark humor.

smaneck said:
I looked up the passage from 2 Nephi 5 and found a very different problem with a passage just a few verses above that. It talks about being taught to use brass, iron and steel. The problem? There is no evidence of brass, iron or steel used in the Americas prior to Columbus.

Actually you are about 50 years behind in your criticisms.
Brass was found to be in the preColombian Americas... As was iron, the Spaniards themselves commented on its use by the native populations.
For steel, you are inserting a modern exacting understanding of steel that just didn't exist in Joseph Smith's time... See references to steel in the Bible for an example.

Ironhold · Jun 3, 2015

skylark1 said:
I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today… The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos.

Spencer Kimball, http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=1091&era=yes

I still need to try and find it, but a few years back a study came out which indicated that not only could people often tell a Mormon from a non-Mormon on sight w/o any further information, those individuals who were able to tell the difference kept pinging on various physical features; IIRC, this included matters like how clear their skin, face, and eyes were due to not consuming things like alcohol and tobacco.

In that sense, it's entirely possible that "clean living" might be one of the factors at play here.

What's so bad about the Book of Mormon?

Member

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

Active Member

Gaia's godchild

Member

Gaia's godchild

Baha'i

Member

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

Dispassionate

Senior Member

Member

It's a new season...

It's a new season...

In awesome wonder

Active Member

Active Member

Baha'i

Senior Member

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency