Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

From the article by a Mopologist: Intriguingly, too, Skousen (a specialist, be it remembered, in linguistics and the English language) contends that the language of the Book of Mormon isn’t Joseph Smith’s early 19th-century dialect, but English of the 1500s and 1600s. Indeed, certain elements of Book of Mormon vocabulary may derive from a period prior to the King James Bible — which is certainly something to ponder.

Why...that's peculiar...
...supposed "gold plates" from B.C. and early A.D. times...
..."translated" for people in the 19th century who don't speak KJV English other than in churches when reading the KJV Bible...
...winds up repeatedly citing KJV English of the early 17th century...
...even oft' screwing up King James grammar as it was oft' used in the 17th century!

Imagine that!!!!

Ya don't imagine that Joseph Smith was trying to convince readers that the book he was trying to hawk (he attempted to sell it in Canada) was somehow the equivalent of the King James Bible, do you???

1 posted on 02/24/2013 3:13:15 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]

To: All

Who authored the Book of Mormon?

* On the 1830 version of the BoM, on the title page, Smith answers this plainly: Joseph Smith, Jr. AUTHOR and PROPRIETOR
* Lds "scripture" -- Doctrine & Covenants 24:1 -- says Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon (it doesn't say he "translated" them).

Who else heavily contributed to the Book of Mormon

Why the King James Bible itself!!

Whole chapters from Isaiah and other minor prophets (like 3 Nephi 24 & 25 is Malachi 3 & 4) are pulled wholesale into the BoM...13 such chapters, if my memory serves me correctly. 3 Nephi 21:12-18 resembles Micah 5:8-14. 3 Nephi 20:16-18 echoes Micah 4:12-13; 5:8-9.

Was plagiarism from the King James Bible involved?

We know that the King James Version Bible became the plagiaristic source for Joseph Smith as he copied approximately 27,000 overall words airlifted, thee-for-thee and thou-for-thou, from the Bible into the Book of Mormon (even though 1830 America didn't use "thee" and "thou" in everyday language). That’s why Lds need to look at the 1830version of the BoM. Because with the 4,000+ clean-up changes that smoothes things over, you have much less of a mountaintop-to-valley experience in reading the current BoM than the 1830 version.

Outright plagiarism from the KJV at times got Smith into trouble by revealing his true source -- that it wasn't "gold plates," after all, that he was "translating."

Example #1: 2 Nephi 23 of the Book of Mormon is a word-for-word theft of Isaiah 13 [and please note...that the italicized words of Isaiah 13, KJ Version during Joseph Smith's day, were not in the original Hebrew from which the KJV was translated...So if they weren't in the Hebrew, how did Nephi get them? Did he reach into the future of 1611 in the UK, and superimpose them into golden plates between 559 and 545 BC?]

Example #2 Per -- In the "Mosiah" chapter fourteen in the Book of Mormon, Isaiah chapter fifty-three is copied word for word, including the italicized words that the King James translators added for clarity! There are sixteen italicized words from the King James Bible in "Mosiah" fourteen. The list of italicized words 
and (three times),
there is,
was (twice),
he was,
was any
his (twice),
a portion (once).
How did these italicized words from a 1611 translation get into a document that was supposedly written before the time of Christ? The answer is obvious: Smith copied them when plagiarizing the King James translation of the prophet Isaiah.

Example #3: Finally, compare 1 Nephi 22:20 in the Book of Mormon with Acts 3:22:

Acts 3:22, as cited by the Kings James Translators in 1611 using common 17th-century language of the era to translate something from over 1500 years prior:

For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you (Acts 3:22)

Now compare that to 1 Nephi 22:20, as cited by Joseph Smith in 1830 using common 1611 language to "translate" something supposedly originally said 2400 years earlier – and  600+ years PRIOR to Peter's quotation.

The issue is not the paraphrases of the first 7 words of Acts 3:22 or the first 19 words of 1 Nephi 22:20...It's what follows: Acts 3:22"A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you"
...Compared & Contrasted to... 
1 Nephi 22:20"A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you"

Except for "unto your brethren" midway between the above two phrases in Acts 3:22, 'tis the exact SAME King James language "paraphrase," even though the NT was in Greek and the Book of Mormon supposedly wasn't -- and even though 19th century Americans were closer to 1950s American culture than 1611 speech wise!

Please note that when you "paraphrase" someone you do exactly that -- you paraphrase. You don't quote someone word for word for 27 exact King James English words within two phrases -- putting the exact same semi-colon at the exact same spot...and you certainly don't quote exactly somebody supposedly speaking over 600 years in the future of your statement in a historical colloquialism from 200 years behind you in its exact translation. (Please also check Deut. 18:15, 18 and you'll see that indeed BOTH Acts 3:22 and 1 Nephi 22:20 are EACH paraphrases of those verses).

Bottom line: The apostle Peter paraphrased Moses in his original language; and the Book of Mormon writer -- IF it was a historical doc -- could also paraphrase Moses in his own language within a separate venue. (No concern in and of itself). It's only when you compare the additional generations of paraphrasing and translating that it becomes quite obvious where Smith got his source for 1 Nephi 22:20.

IllustrationIf a person's FR posts were to be published in the year 3800 in a publication -- and they used an exact version of that quotation as it appeared in a British cockney-slang or Scottish colloquial vocab-adapted publication as published in the year 3575 -- I don't think future FReepers would tell us with a straight face that the author of the year 3800 publication "translated" the original Freeper source from gold-plated Freeper documents written in the year 2013...with his face stuck in a hat. 

2 posted on 02/24/2013 3:18:44 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Colofornian

One of my mormon uncles (who has been a bishop), has a PhD in geology.
He told me that there is zero physical evidence to support anything in the BoM, which is why they call it faith.
This article is very interesting (from a mormon publication).

3 posted on 02/24/2013 3:19:11 PM PST by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Colofornian
His uncle is W. Cleon Skousen, author of the bestseller The Naked Communist (Salt Lake City, Utah: Ensign, 1958)
4 posted on 02/24/2013 3:20:23 PM PST by Fiji Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All
How much is the Book of Mormon's loss of trustworthiness a factor for disaffected and dissociating Mormons?

Per UNDERSTANDING MORMON DISBELIEF: Why do some Mormons lose their testimony, and what happens to them when they do? -- it's the # 4 reason (almost 2/3rds)...(see page 8 of that study).

Per page 14 of that study, things like anachronisms in the Book of Mormon effect more Lds males than females.

5 posted on 02/24/2013 3:27:57 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All
Here's a good link for studying more on the Book of Mormon: MORMONS IN SHOCK: Love warns of danger
6 posted on 02/24/2013 3:33:50 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Colofornian

“may derive” ... what kind of expert is this gentleman?

8 posted on 02/24/2013 3:34:35 PM PST by exnavy (Fish or cut bait ...Got ammo, Godspeed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All
BTW...If I as an author was to...
...heavily plagiarize Biblical phrases from the Bible without credit -- even copying 11 word-for-word chapters from the Bible (as does the Book of Mormon) -- all so that when somebody read my stories I wind up adding to my "own version" of "scriptures"...
...yielding a sense of "credibility"... you think such plagiarism of the most popular book in the history of the world would gain a standing ovation?

And if I as an author was to...
...heavily borrow from the Bible even narratives -- and just "change out" the character involved -- do you think that would cause on "encore" call from the audience?

Note: An estimated 17,000+ words (26+ pages) of [KJV] ...material...either verbatim quotations of the KJV Bible, or advance revelations of what would be written later, all in 1611 King James wording found its way into the Book of Mormon.

Well, I guess that shows Joseph Smith knew how to "cut & paste" back in his day, too...

And one more thing: When I open up my Book of Mormon to 2 Nephi 24, yes, it says, for example "Compare Isaiah 14" -- but it doesn't say, "lifted word for word" from the King James version of Isaiah 14 e'en tho 2 Nephi supposedly comes from B.C. gold plates!

10 posted on 02/24/2013 3:38:35 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All
Even more astonishing is that the revelations in the D&C are Less than three weeks ago, ex-Mormon RPackham was on the forum The King James Bible vs. Ancient Plates and in that Feb. 5 post, made some interesting observations about Joseph Smith electing to use King James verbiage in the 19th century Doctrine & Covenants as well...he also has some notes about KJV language in the Book of Mormon toward the end of these comments:

ALSO mostly in King James English (the actual words dictated by God himself!) and they are full of grammatical errors!

The English of 1611 had its grammatical rules, many of which were quite different from the grammatical rules of modern English. Although they were not always as strictly observed by the English of that time, there was not a lot of latitude. Many usages we now consider "correct English" were barely coming into use then, and were thus "incorrect." For example, "thou" "thee," "thy," and "thine" were used to refer only to the single (singular) person being addressed; "ye," "you," "your" and "yours" were used only when addressing more than one person, or a person to whom great respect was due. ("Ye" was the subject form, "you" the object form.) They were not interchangeable, any more than "I" and "we" are interchangeable in modern English. Nor were "ye" and "you" interchangeable, any more than "they" and "them."

"He has" is modern English. No Elizabethan would say that, but rather "he hath." ("Has" does not occur at all in the King James Bible, but 134 times in the Doctrine and Covenants, along with 100 occurrences of "hath.") The correct possessive for "it" in King James' time was not "its," as in modern English, but "his." (See the first chapter of Genesis for numerous examples.)

Surely if God were speaking modern English, he would not say things like "you is" or "we am," "Are Joseph here? Yes, they art." Nor would he arbitrarily switch from archaic English to modern English, often within the same sentence. And yet that is precisely the kind of ungrammatical imitation of King James English in Mormon scriptures. Here are some examples:

In D&C 3:10 God is speaking to Joseph only: "...repent of what thou hast done, which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen..." (unnecessary switching from singular to plural and back again)

In D&C 6 God speaks to Oliver Cowdery, especially from v. 16 on. From verses 16 to 20, God addresses Oliver correctly with the singular forms "thou," "thee," etc. But from verse 21 to the end, he addressed Oliver incorrectly with the "you" (plural) forms. Similar switching back and forth are in sections 8 and 9.

At D&C 6:16 God says, "...there is none else save God that knowest thy thoughts..." It should be "knoweth," of course: "knowest" can only be used if "thou" is the subject: "thou knowest."

At D&C 105:1 God says, "“Verily I say unto you who have assembled yourselves here that you may learn my will....” (incorrect use of "you" as subject.)

In D&C 10 God is speaking to Joseph Smith. In the first fourteen verses he addresses Smith using the plural forms of "you" a total of 28 times. Then in verse 15 he correctly reverts to the singular: “..[Satan] has put it into their hearts to get thee to tempt the Lord thy God, ..”

The same kinds of error are also frequent in the Book of Mormon:

2 Nephi 1:30-32, Lehi speaks to Zoram (as divinely translated by God's inspired translator): "And now, Zoram, I speak unto you: Behold, thou art the servant of Laban...if ye shall keep the commandments of the Lord, the Lord hath consecrated this land for the security of thy seed with the seed of my son." (incorrect switching between singular and plural)

2 Nephi 3:1, Lehi says: "And now I speak unto you, Joseph, my last-born. Thou wast born in the wilderness of mine afflictions; yea, in the days of my greatest sorrow did thy mother bear thee. (incorrect switching between singular and plural)

Mosiah 2:19-20, King Benjamin says: "O how you ought to thank your heavenly King! ... if you should render all the thanks and praise..." (object form used as subject; should be "ye"; also verses 21, 34, 40, also 4:10, 21, 5:15. More examples of "you" incorrectly used as a subject: Mosiah 12:25, 30; 13:10; 18:10, 13; 24:14; 29:13; Alma 5:6, 16, 19, 20, 22, 55; 7:6, 17, 27; 9:18; 32:28, 30, 34; 37:16; 38:2; many others)

Alma 36 through 42 contain Alma's advice to his sons, each chapter addressed individually to the named son.. He repeatedly uses "ye" and "you" (plural) rather than the singular "thou" and "thee", although occasionally also using the singular (as in 36:3)

These are only a sampling of hundreds of other examples that could be cited, where God (or God's divinely inspired translator) is ungrammatical. Over the years, the Mormon church has corrected over 3,000 errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and awkward wording in the Book of Mormon since its first publication in 1830, such things as "they was," "he seen," which would have been obviously incorrect to an educated speaker of modern English. One would think they would correct the many violations of King James era grammar as well. Especially if that style of English is God's preferred language when communicating with modern English speakers.

11 posted on 02/24/2013 3:44:13 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Colofornian

Cleon’s nephew, how nice. Still trying to redeem the family’s religious heritage. Well, good luck there, Royal. All you can do is polish a turd ... but a turd it remains.

14 posted on 02/24/2013 4:11:34 PM PST by Belteshazzar (We are not justified by our works but by faith - De Jacob et vita beata 2 +Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Colofornian

is this guy related to the 5,000 Year Leap fellow ???

18 posted on 02/24/2013 4:59:30 PM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Colofornian

Inuendos, Distortions, Smears .....

Colofornain, Does your life have no positive purpose and direction?

I would encourage you to find the Love of Jesus Christ, let it fill your soul with peace and love in order to settle the dispise in your heart.

But just to go one round of tit for tat .... Since in your opinion we LDS are not really Christian, what about Emperor

Emperor Constantine helped found your Christology by dictating a portion of the Nicene Creed before he was even a Christian.

At the end of his life Constantine anfinally accepted baptism by Eusibius a non-Nicene, Arius defender.

So in otherwords, A main founder of your Christian belief system, converted to a Christology much closer to the LDS Christology when he finally was baptised.

So is the venerated Saint Contantine a Christian? If so, he died believing in a Christ much closer to the LDS beliefs than to you Nicene belief?

25 posted on 02/24/2013 6:54:37 PM PST by teppe (... for my God ... for my Family ... for my Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Colofornian
... Book of Mormon expert ...

What I want to hear are words from experts on the Book of MORMON Doctrine; the Doctrines and Covenants and the extensive research into the writings that have produced all the rituals found performed in the vast number of MORMONism Temple found about the world.

33 posted on 02/25/2013 8:24:11 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Colofornian
... Book of Mormon expert ...

What does one really need to know???

Hasn't HISTORY delivered enough material to us already?

"Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes than he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters. Then he would tell the writer and he would write it. Then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on. But if it was not Spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous. Thus was the hol [whole] translated."
---Joseph Knight's journal.

"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."
(History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols.
(Independence, Missouri: Herald House,1951),
"Last Testimony of Sister Emma [Smith Bidamon]," 3:356.

"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. . . . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation."
---(David Whitmer,
as published in the "Kansas City Journal," June 5, 1881,
and reprinted in the RLDS "Journal of History", vol. 8, (1910), pp. 299-300.

In an 1885 interview, Zenas H. Gurley, then the editor of the RLDS Saints Herald, asked Whitmer if Joseph had used his "Peep stone" to do the translation. Whitmer replied:

"... he used a stone called a "Seers stone," the "Interpreters" having been taken away from him because of transgression. The "Interpreters" were taken from Joseph after he allowed Martin Harris to carry away the 116 pages of Ms [manuscript] of the Book of Mormon as a punishment, but he was allowed to go on and translate by use of a "Seers stone" which he had, and which he placed in a hat into which he buried his face, stating to me and others that the original character appeared upon parchment and under it the translation in English."

"Martin Harris related an incident that occurred during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet 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, Martin explained the translation as follows: By 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, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."
(Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses,"
reprinted from Deseret News, 30 Nov. 1881
in Millennial Star, 44 (6 Feb. 1882): 86-87.)

In 1879, Michael Morse, Emma Smith's brother-in-law, stated:
 "When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon [I] had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down."
(W.W. Blair interview with Michael Morse,
Saints Herald, vol. 26, no. 12
June 15, 1879,  pp. 190-91.)

Joseph Smith's brother William also testified to the "face in the hat" version:
"The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God"
("A New Witness for Christ in America,"
Francis W. Kirkham, 2:417.)

"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret was the same manner as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, while the book of plates were at the same time hid in the woods."
---Isaac Hale (Emma Smith's father's) affidavit, 1834.

34 posted on 02/25/2013 8:25:42 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Colofornian
Hasn't HISTORY delivered enough material to us already?

The "Caractors" are the only tangible evidence in existence related to Smith's story.
No gold plates, no brass plates, no peep stones, no Urim and Thummim...
only these "Caractors," not a single one of which is in the purported languages.

Smith's translation of the Caractors. According to Martin Harris (Joseph Smith - History, 1:64), "I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated,* and he said they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters."

Speak right up now in all truthfulness. Isn't it revealing how Smith started out making a stab at creating believable "caractors" but quckly gave up and produced nothing but squiggles, ending up wih a series of nothing more than crude little scribbles? Yet Professor Anthon supposedly translated them!

*Harris must have had two or three pieces of paper with him—one with characters and a translation of them (on the same paper or a separate one) and one with untranslated characters—quite likely the "Caractors." Some Mormon "scholars" have gone out on a limb, sawed it off, and knocked themselves out trying to translate from these true Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic characters a segment that would correspond with a verse from 1 Nephi.

Modern-day experts in Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic. In 1829, any knowledge of these languages possessed by U.S. scholars would have been rudimentary at best. Expertise in them has vastly improved since then. So go ahead, do it. Get any modern expert in these languages to identify which of these "Caractors" are Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac and Arabic. Better still, accept the claim of Mormon apologists that Anthon did indeed so testify and that his appraisal of the Caractors was correct. (Op. cit, pp. 73-75)

Save your money! Samples of Assyriac/Aramaic and Arabic writing:


What say you? Which of Smith's "Caractors" resemble the Assyriac and Arabic ones? No need to pay experts for their analysis. A child could accurately check this out. These writing systems have remained constant for well over 3000 years.

35 posted on 02/25/2013 8:27:15 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Colofornian
Among Latter-day Saints, though, he’s best known for having devoted a quarter of a century to meticulous study of the creation of the English text of the Book of Mormon and its transmission thereafter.

But; will he live long enough to delve into the mysteries of the JST???

54 posted on 02/25/2013 1:06:42 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Colofornian
Indeed, certain elements of Book of Mormon vocabulary may derive from a period prior to the King James Bible — which is certainly something to ponder.

55 posted on 02/25/2013 1:10:57 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson