|
Two items appear below: 1 Mormons Refuse to Defend Their Book! 2 Notes on The Book of MormonMORMONS REFUSE TO DEFEND THEIR BOOK! (Investigator 46, 1996
January) Repeated efforts to get Mormons to answer a typed essay titled NOTES ON THE BOOK OF MORMON failed! Various pairs of Mormon missionaries agreed to respond to the essay for Investigator but returned it without response. Several gave an
address or
phone number of
their public relations office. The essay was sent with a covering
letter
but no reply came.
Elders Matthew Milne (from near Wagga Wagga, NSW) and Gabriel Yanez (who grew up in Brazil) were among missionaries consulted. Another pair were elders Alger (from Salt Lake City, Utah) and Bronson (Monticello, Utah). The origin of the essay could not be traced. It was obtained in 1970 as four typed foolscap pages; then used as a bookmark for about 23 years. Mormonism began
in 1830
after Joseph Smith
(1805-1844) wrote The Book of Mormon and said it was a
translation
of hieroglyphics on gold plates, the location of which were announced
by
a ghost.
After getting an
orphan
girl pregnant in
1835, Smith announced God ordered him to be a polygamist. He acquired
between
27 and 49 wives – historians lost count.
NOTES ON THE BOOK OF MORMON CHANGES
IN
THE BOOK OF MORMON
3,000 CHANGES Students of the Book of Mormon have found in excess of 3,000 changes made since the book first made its appearance in 1830. These consist of the correction of the 1830 edition’s faulty grammar and punctuation, correction of spelling, re-arranging sentences, and the addition or deletion of words and entire phrases. Inevitably, some of these changes have made differences in the meanings of certain portions of the book. The important
thing to
remember however,
when studying changes in the Book of Mormon, is that the
translation
was declared to be a perfect one. If this is true, why did changes need
to be made? James E. Talmadge, one of the most authoritative writers on
Mormon doctrine, and author of the Mormon doctrinal work, A Study
of
the Articles of Faith, said this:
It is
noticeable that we
make no reservation
respecting the Book of Mormon on the ground of incorrect translation.
To
do so would be to ignore attested facts as to the bringing forth of
that
book. Joseph Smith the prophet, seer, and revelator, through whom the
ancient
record has been translated into our modern tongue, expressly avers that
the translation was effected through the gift and power of God, and is
in no sense the product of linguistic scholarship.
Martin Harris, one of the three witnesses who appear in the "Testimony of the Three Witnesses" in every Book of Mormon, related the manner of translation in a quote by B. H. Roberts, another Mormon author: 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,’ that sentence would disappear and
another
would 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.
(B. H. Roberts, New Witness for God: Deseret Book Co. 1950, 11, p. 133) (Underlining added for emphasis) EXAMPLES Notice these
examples:
I Nephi 11:21
The 1830
edition reads: "And
the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal
Father!"
In the present
edition it
reads "Behold the
Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!" The same
change is made several other places in I Nephi, notably 11:18, 30;
13:40.
These are deliberate and intentional changes in a translation that was
supposed to already be perfect.
I Nephi 15:30 The
1830
edition reads: "…for
the space of many years, and many generations after the Messiah hath
manifested himself in body unto the children of men…"
The present
edition reads:
"…and many generations
after the Messiah shall be manifested in the body…" The words
"shall
be" are added, and "hath," and "himself" are deleted. I Nephi 20:1
"…or out of
the waters of baptism"
is not found in the 1830 edition, but has been added in the present
edition.
Promulgation of the Mormon doctrine on baptism appears to be the motive
here. Alma 29:10 The 1830 edition reads, "for I know that he granteth unto men according to their desire, whether it be unto death or unto life; yea, I know that he alloteth unto men, yea, decreeth them decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills..." Here then, is an
entire
phrase (underlined)
which has been deleted from the original translation. An imperfection
in
a perfect translation? Alma 46:19 The 1830 edition reads: "And when Moroni had said these words, he went forth among the people, waving the rent of his garment in the air, that all might see the writing which he had wrote upon the rent…" For obvious
reasons the
sentence has been
changed to read: "…waving the rent part of his garment in the air, that
all might see the writing which he had written upon the rent part…" I Nephi 11:18
The 1830
edition reads: "Behold,
the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of
the flesh." This unfortunate allusion to Roman Catholic doctrine was
changed
to read "Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of the
Son
of God, after the manner of the flesh." Alma 56:10 The 1830 edition reads: "…his army had been reduced by the Lamanites because of the numerority of their forces…" The underlined phrase has been deleted from the present edition again for obvious reasons. It would be
impossible to
survey all of the
changes which have been made in the "perfect" translation because of
the
huge number which have occurred. But these few examples should be
enough
to point out the serious discrepancy between what the book is purported
to be, and the actual facts.
THE ARCHEOLOGY OF THE BOOK OF MORMON Mormons claim that the Book of Mormon in an accurate record of not only the origin of the American Indian, but also of their culture. As we shall see, eminent institutions of learning disagree that this is the case. The following
letter was
addressed to the
pastor of the Hillcrest Methodist Church in Fredericksburg, Virginia,
an
ardent student of Mormonism and its claims. It is from the Department
of
Anthropology at Colombia University in New York City.
Dear Sir:
Pardon my delay
in
answering your letter
of January 14, 1957. The question which you ask concerning the Book of
Mormon in one that comes up quite frequently... However...I may say
that
I do not believe that there is a single thing of value concerning the
prehistory
of the American Indian in the BOOK of MORMON and I believe that the
great
majority of American archaeologists would agree with me. The book is
untrue
Biblically, historically, and scientifically.
Very Sincerely
yours,
Nm. Duncan Strong The Smithsonian
Institution,
recognized world-wide
for its store of historical and scientific knowledge, is also quite
emphatic.
The following letter leaves no doubt as to this institution’s position:
There is no
correspondence whatever between
archeological sites and cultures as revealed by scientific
investigations,
and as recorded in the Book of Mormon. Interpretations of archeological
and ethnographic data, moreover, are quite unlike the American
prehistory
which the Book of Mormon describes... It can be stated definitely that
there is no connection between the archeology of the New World and the
subject matter of the Book of Mormon.
With respect to
some of
the questions which
you have raised pertaining to the story in the Book of Mormon relating
to aboriginal occupation in the New World, I may say that thus far no
iron,
steel, brass, gold and silver coins, metal swords, breast-plates, arm
shields,
armor, horses and chariots, or silk have ever been found in
pre-colonial
archeological sites.
It is not until after the conquest of the New World by Europeans that material in those categories appear in association with aboriginal artifacts. As a matter of fact, there are not many such objects occurring in historical sites. Furthermore, cattle, sheep, swine, horses and asses, such as we know them, were introduced in the Americas by Europeans in post-Columbian times. No actual elephants have been found in any archeological site. …I do not know any case where an archeological site has been identified with any of the names of the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon… It is possible that some of the anthropologists at Brigham Young University (Mormon) who have done some work in the Maya area may have attempted such a correlation, but if so I have not seen it reported. None of the main workers in the field have made any reference to the possibility of one of the well-known ruins being those of a city mentioned in the Book of Mormon. (Letters from Smithsonian Institution as recorded in, "The Book of Mormon Examined" by Arthur Budvarson, Utah Christian Tract Society, 1959, p. 35, 36) Both of the above
letters
were taken from
The
Maze of Mormonism by Walter B. Knight, Zondervan, Grand Rapids,
Michigan,
1962, pp. 46, 47.
PLAGIARISMS OF THE KING JAMES VERSION Those who have made a careful survey of the Book of Mormon estimate that at least 25,000 words from the King James Version of 1611 have been employed in its writing. In fact, there are many verbatim quotations of considerable length. Now the question
is, "Why
would a book translated
in 1830, be translated into the form of English spoken in 1611?"
Note the
following
examples:
1. Moroni,
chapter 10
contains much of
the language of 1 Cor. 12:1-11
2. 11 Nephi 14 is a parody upon Isaiah 4, and II Nephi 12 compared with Isaiah 2 reveals that "Joseph Smith made free use of his Bible to supplement the alleged revelation of the golden plates." (Ibid, pp. 51, 52) 3. III Nephi
13:1-18 is a
parody upon Matt.
6:1-23.
Mormons claim that
the reason
for these similarities
lies in the fact that when Christ spoke to the Now World, He used much
the same language that he did in Palestine.
There is only one problem
with
such allegation, and that is that the Book of Mormon utilises
passages
from the King James Version that are now recognized by most textual
critics
to be additions to the original text or erroneous translations from the
original language. For example:
THE
REFORMED EGYPTIAN LANGUAGE
The text of our Bible in supported by over 4,500 Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts. When a translation is prepared, these manuscripts can be compared with one another, resulting in a high degree of accuracy. When we consider the Book of Mormon however, it is quite a different story. This book was supposed to have been originally written in the "Reformed Egyptian tongue" a language they cannot prove over existed! No literature or ancient writing of any kind exists in this language and there are certainly no manuscripts of the Book of Mormon available in this language. Examples of the Reformed Egyptian language ware alleged to have been taken to a professor Charles Anthon of New York for examination. In the Pearl Of Great Price (another source of Mormon doctrine) Anthon is supposed to have said (in Smith’s words), "…that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian." (Pearl Of Great Price, chap.2 vss. 62, 63, 64). Anthon, however,
in a
letter to E. D. Howe
in 1834, said:
The whole
story about my
having pronounced
the Mormonite inscription to be "reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics" is
perfectly
false…
Upon examining the paper in question, I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a trick, perhaps a hoax! ... This paper was in fact a singular scrawl. It consisted of crooked characters disposed in columns and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns... I am thus
particular as to
the contents of
the paper, inasmuch as I have frequently conversed with my friends on
the
subject, since the Mormonite excitement began, and well remember that
the
paper contained anything else by "Egyptian Hieroglyphics."
We see the weakness
of any
argument in favor
of the "Reformed Egyptian" language when the Book of Mormon
itself
declares the tongue to be unknown to any other people. The language
must
have thus died when the people did. The translation was accomplished by
a "prepared means" (Mormon 9:32) because of this fact. Reformed
Egyptian
then, is not a known language. There are no documents or inscriptions
or
any sort of literature in this language.
Question: "How
could Prof.
Anthon declare
the "translation" was correct when the Book of Mormon declares
that
no one on earth knew the language? If Prof. Anthon understood the
characters
on the "plates" and knew the ones he saw had been correctly translated
why did Joseph Smith have to have a "prepared means" of translation?
Why
not let Anthon do the work?
CONCLUDING REMARKS One thing the
Bible
expressly forbids is
adding to the body of Revelation (Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:6;
Revelation
22:19)
Paul says:
But though we,
or an
angel from heaven
preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto
you let him be accursed. As we said before, so may I now again, If any
man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, lot
him
be accursed. (Gal. 1:8, 9)
https://ed5015.tripod.com/ https://investigatormagazine.net |