Conference tecrus::mormonism

    This isn't hard to answer (so far).  Joseph Smith was quite familiar 
    with the Bible and the revelations given were from the same God.  When
    Joseph Smith found passages that were similar, he probably whipped
    out the Bible and compared, which helped to speed up the translation 
    process.  The Book of Mormon contains many of the Old Testament
    writings since scriptures were taken by Lehi and his family when
    they came to the new continent.  And, Christ gave them many of the
    teachings that he gave in the old world.
    
    Steve

As Steve just pointed out, the Book of Mormon contains chapters from Isaiah,
Malachi, etc. because (a) Lehi brought a set of brass plates that contained
the Old Testament to his time, and (b) Jesus gave the Nephites the writings
from Malachi, the Sermon on the Mount, etc.

So, the fact that the Book of Mormon contains portions of the Bible is as
Steve pointed out easily explained.  One question that needs attention, however,
is why Joseph Smith followed the King James Version when translating those
portions of the Book of Mormon.  This involves the question of whether
Joseph was inspired with a word-for-word translation or with general meanings
and had to form his own choice of words, expressions, etc.

Note 62 is discussing the translation of the Book of Mormon.

Allen

    In all respect, gentleman, I believe you are being a bit hasty and
    missing the central point of Paul Vicker's note. I refer you to
    80.3 for a further discussion of this issue.
    
    Ed

  Ed,
    The 8th article of faith does not say that the whole Bible was
    translated incorrectly and you should not infer that it does.  There
    is a middle ground.  
    
    I suggest you go back and read how the actual Book Of Mormon
    translation was done, along with the explanations given here, and
    think about what Joseph said about the mechanics of the translating.
                                                            
    You know, I get a kick out of people claiming that JS wrote the
    BOM.  I know a lot of 18-2? year old boys that are smart, and well educated,
    but they wouldn't be able to write a book comparable to the BOM.
    So what your saying is that JS was exceptionally bright and educated
    himself well ahead of his contemporaries.               
    And if they did write such a book and persecution got so overwhelming
    that their lives were in imminent danger, wouldn't they renounce it to save
    their lives and those of others they had decieved?                     
   
    richard                                                 
                                                            
                                                            
                                                            

Re 80.3

>The question then, is, how does a
>book, claiming to be written in 421 A.D., manage to contain verbatim
>passages from a book written 1200 years later, in another part of the
>world, by other men, in another language?

Agreed, as I pointed out in 81.2


>Either God gave them to Joseph Smith through the Urim
>and Thummim word-for-word as they are found in the 1611 KJV Bible (which
>means they must have been translated perfectly by the scholars in 1611 -
>contrary to the 8th Article of Faith), or they were in fact "borrowed"
>by Joseph Smith to lend some sort of substance and credibility to
>something he wrote on his own, a sort of pseudo-scripture. There doesn't
>seem to be any middle ground.

Or, the Lord inspired Joseph Smith with meanings, and Joseph followed the
wording of the KJV in putting the meanings into words.  The Translation of
the Book of Mormon is being discussed in note 62.

Allen

This reply gives pointers to other discussions that are pertinent to this
discussion.

     31   Evidence of the Book of Mormon
     33   He Walked the Americas
     62   Translation of the Book of Mormon
     64   Evidence and Parallels
     69   Evaluating Historical Documents

Rich,

>    The 8th article of faith does not say that the whole Bible was
>    translated incorrectly and you should not infer that it does.  There
>    is a middle ground.  

The qualifier "insofar as it is translated correctly" implies
reservations regarding the correctness of the Bible. While the
pervasiveness of error is not specified, it can be concluded by the
generality of the statement that it is extensive enough to cast doubt
on the reliablity of the book (Bible) as a whole. Presumably the parts
that are translated correctly are those which do not conflict with
Mormon beliefs. The basis for the reservations about the Bible are not
to be found in provable and correctable errors in the translation
process, but in conflicts with Mormon doctrine. I also refer you to
LDS apostle Orson Pratt who said in his comments about the Bible, "Who
knows that even one verse of the Bible has escaped pollution, so as to
convey the same now that it did in the original?" ("Divine
Authenticity of the Book of Mormon", p45-47 quote found in "The Mormon
Illusion" by Floyd C. McElveen) 

>   You know, I get a kick out of people claiming that JS wrote the
>   BOM.  I know a lot of 18-2? year old boys that are smart, and well educated,
>   but they wouldn't be able to write a book comparable to the BOM.

And I might add that some people get a kick out of the highly implausible
stories surrounding the Book of Mormon, which seem a lot less credible than
the idea that JS wrote the BoM himself. Besides, he could have had help, and
with all of the uncertainty surrounding the dating of events (visions, etc),
it is also possible that the book took longer to produce than is now claimed.
Thus we see that, if it was not a solo effort, and was done over a greater
period of time, then it is not so remarkable that the book could be the 
work of men.

>    So what your saying is that JS was exceptionally bright and educated
>    himself well ahead of his contemporaries.               

Not at all. If anything is commonly agreed upon, it is that Joseph
Smith was uneducated. The numerous corrections of JS's spelling and
grammatical errors in the BoM prove this.  Exceptionally bright?
Undoubtedly. An exceptionally bright, imaginative and ambitious
individual is certainly capable of lengthy literary works without
benefit of an education. Adolf Hitler wasn't highly educated, yet he
wrote Mein Kampf. Though I would never in any way compare his book
with the BoM, it nonetheless proves my point. 

>    I suggest you go back and read how the actual Book Of Mormon
>    translation was done, along with the explanations given here, and
>    think about what Joseph said about the mechanics of the translating.

I have already read what Joseph Smith - and others who were there at
the time - have said about the mechanics of the translating. There are
some great problems with that, too, which will be explored in an
upcoming entry to note 80. 

Relevant to the topic at hand, though, I have yet to come across any
mention of using the KJV Bible as part of the translation process,
as some of you have speculated. I can see how I might speculate that
he had the KJV next to him while writing the BoM, but I am surprised
to hear Mormons suggesting it, because it doesn't say much for his
method of translation or your confidence in it.

Ed

>Presumably the parts
>that are translated correctly are those which do not conflict with
>Mormon beliefs. The basis for the reservations about the Bible are not
>to be found in provable and correctable errors in the translation
>process, but in conflicts with Mormon doctrine. 

No need to presume.  Refer to 1 Nephi 13:26-29 to see why the Bible is only
accepted as far as it is translated correctly.  There are othere references
if you have interest.  The conflicts with Mormon doctrine are regarded by the 
Mormons to be in conflict with teachings of Christ's church.  There are
other notes in this conference which discuss this.  As to which parts
of the Bible are in error, is it not sufficient to show the confusion
that ensues as different churches contend on Biblical issues to demonstrate
the extent of the errors in the record?  If not, perhaps another note
could be started illustrating the specific places where the Mormons
believe the Bible to be in error, inaccurate or easily misinterpreted
if there is interest.

>Relevant to the topic at hand, though, I have yet to come across any
>mention of using the KJV Bible as part of the translation process,
>as some of you have speculated. I can see how I might speculate that
>he had the KJV next to him while writing the BoM, but I am surprised
>to hear Mormons suggesting it, because it doesn't say much for his
>method of translation or your confidence in it.

Why isn't there be more criticism for the differences that the similar
sections have than for the similarities?  It's the differences that
most people find distressing.  It's obvious that Joseph Smith had 
knowledge of the Bible.  It's obvious that the translation process
would have been sped up if Joseph Smith could use it for comparison.
What is not now obvious is the need to prove that Joseph Smith could have
used the Bible when he found sections of the Book of Mormon where the
same message was given.  It is nowhere found nor implied that Joseph Smith
did not use the Bible for the translation process.  Would there have been 
less criticism if the Book of Mormon claimed to quote from other scriptures 
and preserved the meaning but used completely different words?  As to surprise, 
why would there be any lack of confidence in the method of translation?  If I
were translating a French history book about America and discovered a 
version of the Declaration of Independence in it, wouldn't it be rather
silly of me to not at least find an English copy of the translation for
comparison and use it to speed the translation process?  The speculation
is obvious to the casual observer and generates no surprise.  This is
because it assumes the application of common sense on the part of Joseph 
Smith.  However, this bit of speculation was not originated by me or
by others in this conference.  I read it in the Ensign, but I don't have 
the issue handy.  Anybody out there remember where it is?


Steve

Okay, I've found one reference.  This is from the July 1979 Ensign (p. 42):

	The Bible and the translation of the Book of Mormon
	---------------------------------------------------

	In the task of translating the Book of Mormon, the prophet had
	first-hand experience with the difficulty of accurately rendering
	a passage from one language into another.  It was only by the influence
	of the Spirit and through the 'gift and power of God' that a correct
	translation could be made - and considerable effort and thought was
	still required from the translator.

	This difficulty in conveying the true intent of scripture may account,
	in part at least, for the frequent use of King James Version language
	in the Book of Mormon translation.

	The Bible was not the *source* of the information in the Book of
	Mormon, but the literary style of the Bible was apparently used
	as a *vehicle* to convey many of the concepts in the Book of Mormon.
	The hundreds of verses in the Book of Mormon that are similar in
	language and style to the King James Version illustrate the Bible's
	influence in this phase of the Restoration.

This is from an article entitled 'The Bible and its Role in the Restoration'
by Robert J. Matthews who at the time was Associate Professor of Ancient
Scripture at Brigham Young University.  (In 1982 he was Dean of Religious 
Instruction at BYU.)

Other related Ensign references I found include:

Restoring 'Plain and Precious Parts' by Monte S. Nyman, pp. 19-25, December 1981
Plain and Precious Things Restored by Robert J. Matthews, pp. 14-20, July 1982
The Value of New Textual Sources to the King James Bible by John M. Lundquist, 
	pp.42-47, August 1983
I Have a Question by L. La Mar Adams, p. 29, October 1984
I Have a Question by Victor L. Ludlow, p. 37, April 1985


Steve
    

    Re: Note 81.7 by CASV05::PRESTON 
    
    Hi Ed,
    
>The qualifier "insofar as it is translated correctly" implies
>reservations regarding the correctness of the Bible. While the
>pervasiveness of error is not specified, it can be concluded by the
>generality of the statement that it is extensive enough to cast doubt
>on the reliablity of the book (Bible) as a whole. Presumably the parts
>that are translated correctly are those which do not conflict with
>Mormon beliefs. 
    
    Since the LDS church qualifies the accuracy of the translation of the
    Bible, one might jump to the conclusion that the church does not accept
    the teachings found in the Bible, in it's present form. I think this is
    an incorrect conclusion. I dare say the LDS church takes the Bible more
    literally IN ITS PRESENT FORM, than any other church. There are many
    things taught there that we accept that many other Christian churches
    do not accept. Examine the Biblical references in 4.* and ask yourself
    how many of these teachings that are found in the Bible are not
    accepted by many Christian faiths.
    
    We're not really saying that there is a lot of *false* doctrine in the
    Bible, as much as we are saying that some of the plain simple truths
    have been taken out, which cause many to stumble, and to argue over the
    meaning of many Bible teachings. 
    
    Is the Bible reliable, in our view? YES! And, in our view, the Book
    of Mormon completely supports the teachings of the Bible, and sheds
    further valuable light on them.
    
>And I might add that some people get a kick out of the highly implausible
>stories surrounding the Book of Mormon, which seem a lot less credible than
>the idea that JS wrote the BoM himself. 

    Oh, yes! There *is* much that seems incredible about the LDS church.
    But what if it *is* true? God has done some pretty incredible things
    over the years, and will do many more incredible things. Visions,
    and angels, and gold plates are not beyond the power of God. 
                                      
    If these things are true, then Christians everywhere should rejoice
    to receive the Word of God. If they are not true, then they amount
    to a mean and dangerous fraud. But to know for sure, one must study
    it out and ask God, as has been discussed elsewhere in this conference.
    I have done so, and bear witness that these things *are* true!
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

    Re: Note 81.7 by CASV05::PRESTON 
    
    Hi Ed,

>   And I might add that some people get a kick out of the highly
>   implausible stories surrounding the Book of Mormon, which seem a lot
>   less credible than the idea that JS wrote the BoM himself. Besides, he
>   could have had help, and with all of the uncertainty surrounding the
>   dating of events (visions, etc), it is also possible that the book took
>   longer to produce than is now claimed. Thus we see that, if it was not
>   a solo effort, and was done over a greater period of time, then it is
>   not so remarkable that the book could be the work of men. 

    You suggest that there is uncertainty about the dating of the events as
    they pertain to the translation of the Book of Mormon, and you also
    suggest that Joseph Smith may have had help from others to write it,
    making it a work of men, and not of God. 
    
    Actually, the timeframe of the translation of the Book of Mormon has
    been carefully researched and is well documented. For example, in his
    book, "A New Witness for Christ in America", Francis Kirkham examines
    much of the available evidence documenting from multiple sources when
    the plates were received, when translation began, when it ended, who
    the scribes were that wrote as Joseph dictated, and when the printing
    of the book began and ended. 
               
    After an initial false start, in which 116 pages of the translation
    were lost by Martin Harris, the Lord instructed Joseph Smith that he
    was not to translate the lost portion again. Oliver Cowdery began
    acting as scribe on April 7, 1829 at about page sixteen and wrote the
    rest of the present text of the Book of Mormon, as Joseph dictated,
    which was completed about July 1, 1829. 
    
    The handwriting in the original manuscripts verify this account; it is
    almost entirely in Oliver Cowdery's handwriting. Joseph Smith's
    whereabouts and activities prior to this time are well accounted for,
    thus making it very improbable that others collaborated to "fabricate"
    the book. There is no evidence that such a collaboration took place,
    and there are plenty of witnesses who attested to Joseph's account of
    the timeframe of the translation. 
    
    The manuscript was then copied and taken to the printer, beginning in
    August 1829. The printing process was completed on March 19, 1830. 

    After several chapters on the subject, Kirkham concludes by saying:
    
         From the above sources, it is clear that the Book of Mormon was
         dictated by Joseph Smith in the relatively short period of
         seventy-five working days. There were many witnesses both at his
         home at Harmony, Pennsylvania, and at Fayette, New York. Many
         persons knew all the facts. No one has attempted to deny them. The
         physical facts concerning time, place and scribes of the writing
         of the translation and the publishing of the Book of Mormon are
         attested by both believers and non-believers in the divine origin
         of the book. There was no incentive for deception or
         misrepresentation of these facts by the persons who willingly gave
         their time to this effort. No wealth, honor, power or influence
         was to come to any one of them from this achievement only the
         privilege to serve. The reward was joy in this life and in
         eternity by helping to lead "save it be but one soul" into the way
         of divine love and eternal progress. 
         
         A New Witness for Christ in America, p 227, by Francis W. Kirkham 
         
    Rich
    

    The following notes have been posted in topic 62, which pertain to the
    translation of the Book of Mormon.
        
    	62.8   The Isaiah Problem
    
    	62.9   Dictation of the Record
    
    Rich

> The conflicts with Mormon doctrine are regarded by the 
> Mormons to be in conflict with teachings of Christ's church.  

Of that I am convinced. My point in mentioning that the areas in
question in the Bible are those in conflict with Mormon doctrine was to
point out that I have yet to see any hard evidence that such a thing as
is mentioned in 1 Nephi 13:26-29 ever took place in such a way as to
cause the text of the books of the Bible we have today to be different
than what it was in the days of the early church. All I have heard is a
loose rationale of uncertainty to allow the door to be opened for any
and all utterances of Mormon prophets to add to or supercede the books
of the Bible. It seems that Mormons are happy to wholeheartedly endorse
the Bible wherever it does not conflict with their sacred books. 

> What is not now obvious is the need to prove that Joseph Smith could have
> used the Bible when he found sections of the Book of Mormon where the
> same message was given.  It is nowhere found nor implied that Joseph Smith
> did not use the Bible for the translation process.  

I find it interesting that now you are suggesting that it is possible
for Joseph Smith to have used the Bible to help him translate the Book
of Mormon. I thought he did it by "the gift and power of God", but now
you have him resorting to the not-so-correctly-translated Bible to help
him along. Either he used the Bible or he didn't.You even compromise
your credibility by claiming simultaneously that his account of the
translation is true yet that he might have employed different means than
those he claimed. What you are really saying is that maybe Joseph
Smith's account of the translation isn't exactly correct and that maybe
you'll help his credibility along by suggesting he copied from the Bible
when it was expedient for him to do so. 

Your argument that he "could have used the Bible when he found sections
of the Book of Mormon where the same message was given" to "speed up"
the translation, makes no sense at all, because in order for him to know
that "the same message was given" he would have to have already fully
translated the message from the Book of Mormon and not needed to copy
from the Bible at all.

Re 81.9, exerpt from July '79 Ensign:

>	This difficulty in conveying the true intent of scripture may account,
>	in part at least, for the frequent use of King James Version language
>	in the Book of Mormon translation.
>
>	The Bible was not the *source* of the information in the Book of
>	Mormon, but the literary style of the Bible was apparently used
>	as a *vehicle* to convey many of the concepts in the Book of Mormon.
>	The hundreds of verses in the Book of Mormon that are similar in
>	language and style to the King James Version illustrate the Bible's
>	influence in this phase of the Restoration.

That Joseph Smith styled the Book of Mormon after the KJV Bible is
obvious. The seemingly endless use of the phrase "and it came to pass"
is evidence enough of that. This doesn't begin to account however, for
the many verses that are verbatim or nearly verbatim copies of passages
found in the KJV Bible. The only explanation for this seems to be that,
contrary to the article in the Ensign, the Bible actually is the source
of much of the content of the Book of Mormon. 

The only motive I can see for his borrowing from the Bible is to attempt
to lend religious credibility to a work of human origin. 

Ed 

Rich,

I'd like to reply to your notes, but we're getting off the track of the
main topic. As far as my impression of the Mormon Church's attitude towards
the trustworthiness of the Bible, I refer you to my earlier quote from
LDS Apostle Orson Pratt. 

As far as "plain and precious" things having been "restored", I have yet
to see a solid basis for that belief. If the plain and precious things
that have been restored are such things as eternal marriage, baptism for
the dead, God was once a man, Adam as God, revived Old Testament
priesthoods, secret temple rituals, on again/off again polygamy, etc,
etc, then these things are certainly not plain, and I am still waiting to 
see the basis for the claim that they are "restored" from the days of
early Christianity. (This is a rhetorical statement to which an answer 
is not expected - not under this topic, anyway). 

While I'm on the subject, it seems to confuse the continuity a bit to
have you answering things that I haven't brought up yet, such as the
accounts of Smith's translation of the plates. This note, 81, is for
replies to the "formal" entries in 80, and I'd like to keep it consistent.
I do plan to get into the translation process, but when I'm ready, and
when I've fully explored whatever the present subject is. Your cooperation 
is appreciated.
    
Ed

    

    Re: Note 81.14 by CASV02::PRESTON 

    Ed,
    
>   it seems to confuse the continuity a bit to have you answering things
>   that I haven't brought up yet, such as the accounts of Smith's
>   translation of the plates. 
    
    My responses were generated as a result of your statement in 81.7
    implying that Joseph Smith had "help" from others and that it may have
    taken longer to produce the Book of Mormon than is claimed by the LDS
    church. 
    
>   As far as "plain and precious" things having been "restored", I have
>   yet to see a solid basis for that belief. If the plain and precious
>   things that have been restored are such things as eternal marriage,
>   baptism for the dead, God was once a man, Adam as God, revived Old
>   Testament priesthoods, secret temple rituals, on again/off again
>   polygamy, etc, etc, then these things are certainly not plain
                                                              
    Actually, you have given some good examples of things that *are*
    found in the Bible, but are not fully accepted by many people who
    say they believe in the Bible. For example:
        
    Eternal Marriage (Peter was given power to seal in heaven)
    Baptism For The Dead (mentioned by Paul)
    God was once a man (Jesus Christ was a man, yet is a God)
    Old Testament Priesthoods (spoken of in the Bible)
    Secret Temple Rituals (spoken of in the Bible)
    Polygamy (practiced by many faithful people in the Bible)

    There are many other things that have been restored that you did
    not mention, but are mentioned in the Bible. We'll save those for
    another discussion, however.
    
    Rich

>    Actually, you have given some good examples of things that *are*
>    found in the Bible, but are not fully accepted by many people who
>    say they believe in the Bible. 
        
Depending on how you go about it, there is a way to *find* almost anything 
you want in the Bible. It is one thing to *find* something in the Bible, and
entirely another to presume to build from it a complex doctrinal structure.

You could, for instance, "restore" the Doctrine of Wearing Animal Skins,
since God gave animal skins to Adam and Eve to cover their nakedness after 
they had sinned. It might go something like this, "Adam and Eve covered
themselves with fig leaves after they sinned, to hide their nakedness, but
God clothed them with the skins of animals. Thus we see that God's people 
should wear animal skins as clothing, and not plant products...". Sound
doctrinal reasoning, eh? 

Well, it's mentioned in the Bible, but it is not "fully accepted" by many 
people who say they believe in the Bible, so what are they to do? 

Ed

    Ed,
    
    You make a good point. How are we to know which of the many things
    referred to somewhat vaguely in the Bible have application in our
    lives? That's been a thorny issue among Christians for centuries. 
    
    In the context of Mormonism, I guess it all comes down to one question: 
    
    Was Joseph Smith a prophet of God? 
    
    On this question hinges the truth or error of all of the claims
    of the LDS church.
                      
    If he was a prophet of God, it would be reasonable to say that God
    restored additional light and knowledge to such a prophet about things
    that are sometimes vaguely referred to in the Bible, and yet are not
    understood/accepted/practiced in our day. 
    
    On the other hand, if Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God, then there
    is no justifiable reasoning for the "restoration" of such things. 
                                 
    By the way, there are some things that are not so vaguely referred to
    in the Bible that have been restored, such as the church being led by
    living prophets and apostles and the need for proper authority from God
    to perform His ordinances.
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich
                                              

>    In the context of Mormonism, I guess it all comes down to one question: 
>    Was Joseph Smith a prophet of God? 

I think that pretty much says it. I think it also follows that if the
Book of Mormon isn't genuine, then Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God,
since the two stand or fall together.

Ed

    Yes, the Book of Mormon is the key. If one comes to know that it is the
    Word of God, as it is claimed to be, then they can be sure that Joseph
    Smith was a prophet of God. If the Book of Mormon is not the Word of
    God, then they can be sure Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God. 
    
    Rich

    Re: Note 80.4 by  CASV05::PRESTON

>   -< The 'Raca' Problem >-
>
>   In 3 Nephi chapter 12 we find what appears to be the text of the Sermon
>   on the Mount from Matthew chapter 5. In the passage where Christ speaks
>   against anger, we read "And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca,
>   shall be in danger of the council". The texts from both the Book of
>   Mormon and Matthew are identical...

    You say the verses are identical in the Bible and Book of Mormon.
    Not so. I've marked the differences with *'s.
    
         But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother
         *without a cause* shall be in danger of *the* judgment: and
         whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger
         of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be
         in danger of hell fire.  Matthew 5:22 
    
         But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother
         shall be in danger of *his* judgment. And whosoever shall say
         to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and
         whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell
         fire. 3 Nephi 12:22 
                                    
>   ...even to the word "Raca", which is the Greek rendering of an Aramaic
>   word which is a term of utter vilification, such as
>   "good-for-nothing-empty-headed-idiot". 
>       
>   The problem is that in the 1611 King James Version, the translators
>   decided to leave the word just as it appears in the source document,
>   yet somehow this identical word appears in the passage from the Book of
>   Mormon. The question that begs to be answered is this: How does an
>   Aramaic colloquialism find its way into the English translation of a
>   book that was written in a lost Egyptian dialect, by an author who did
>   not speak Aramaic? 

    I guess I don't see the problem with this, in the context of recent
    postings regarding the method of translation of the Book of Mormon.
    There are a number of possible explanations for this.
    
    Joseph Smith was not trying to translate *words*, but rather ideas. If
    an Aramaic word found in the Bible expresses the idea, there is nothing
    wrong with him using it. The Word of God is not given for us to debate
    over individual words, but to convey teachings that God would have us
    understand and follow. The only valid question here is, does it convey
    the idea clearly? The King James translators thought so, and so, too,
    did Joseph Smith. 
    
    The Book of Mormon teaches that Jesus Christ himself came among the
    people in ancient America and taught the people the same teachings that
    he taught in Palestine. Many of these teachings were recorded in the
    Book of Mormon. It should not be surprising to find them to be similar
    to those found in the Bible. If Christ chose to use the word Raca in
    Palestine, he could just as well have chosen to use it in America. 

    In addition, it is not uncommon for words from one language to find
    their way into other languages. "Raca" is a word that suggests contempt
    and derision, in both the Aramaic and the Greek. In the original Semite
    tongue, it means vain or empty. Certain portions of the Old Testament
    were written in Aramaic, and it is probable that Jesus and his
    disciples spoke Galilean Aramaic. The people who wrote the Book of
    Mormon came from Jerusalem, and it would not be too incredible to find
    some Aramaic words adapted into their language. How many of the words
    we use in English have their roots in other languages? 

>   The only logical explanation seems to be that it was in fact copied
>   from the King James Bible, word-for-word, and not a translation at all. 
    
    The passage you refer to is a good example of how the verses are *not*
    all copied verbatim, since the Book of Mormon version of that verse
    leaves out "without a cause", and changes "the judgment" to "his
    judgment". 
    
    It has been freely admitted by LDS scholars that Joseph Smith very
    probably *did* refer to the Bible when Book of Mormon prophets were
    quoting things that were similar to that found in the Bible.
    Apparently, when the *ideas* matched, Joseph *did* copy those verses
    word for word. However, when they did *not* match the ideas precisely,
    the verses were rendered differently. This process of comparing texts
    during translation is commonly used by translators, including the
    translators of the Bible itself. 
    
    The fact that not all of the verses are found the same does lend
    support to Joseph's claim that the translation was done by the gift and
    power of God, for he did not blindly copy all of the verses as they are
    in the Bible, but carefully compared the texts and relied upon the
    revelation of God to show how the verses should be translated. 

    Does the incidence of the word "Raca" in the Book of Mormon translation
    of the Savior's teachings to the Nephites destroy the credibility of
    the Book of Mormon? I don't think so.
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

Rich,

If you read 80.4 more carefully, you will see that I specifically quoted the
passage, "And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of
the council". It is identical in both books and is the passage I was referring
to. I am aware of the differences that you flagged, and do not feel that they
amount to much one way or the other in the making of my point. 

>    Joseph Smith was not trying to translate *words*, but rather ideas. If
>    an Aramaic word found in the Bible expresses the idea, there is nothing
>    wrong with him using it. 

>    The only valid question here is, does it convey
>    the idea clearly? The King James translators thought so, and so, too,
>    did Joseph Smith. 

If his mission was to restore "plain" truths, why then does he resort to using
obscure words from foreign languages? Most modern translations of the Bible do
*not* use the word "Raca", because nobody today knows what it means. We are
told repeatedly that JS was not an educated man, not a scholar like King James'
translators, so it is highly unlikely that he would have even known what "Raca"
meant, much less decide that it was the best word to use. Why did he not
translate it to make the meaning plain? It should have been easy enough. No, it
doesn't convey the idea clearly, not in the KJV or the Book of Mormon. I have a
Mormon friend with an MBA (highly educated) who, when asked about this verse,
explained that it was the German word for revenge, and was a colloquialism of
the times (1830's) used by Americans of German descent. A good explanation,
just a wrong one. Obviously the meaning was *not* plain, even to him. Had JS
translated the word properly, if it even could have been rendered as "Raca" in
"reformed Egyptian", you could have pointed to it as an excellent example of 
how he made obscure truths plain, but since he didn't, you cannot. 

>    The fact that not all of the verses are found the same does lend
>    support to Joseph's claim that the translation was done by the gift and
>    power of God, for he did not blindly copy all of the verses as they are
>    in the Bible, but carefully compared the texts and relied upon the
>    revelation of God to show how the verses should be translated. 

Let me get this straight, now you are saying that, in spite of the *many*
identical passages found between the BOM and the KJV Bible, because *some* of
them are slightly different, this somehow provides us *further* basis for
believing that he did this by some power given by God? And on what do you
base your belief that he "carefully compared the texts"? Do you realize how
long that would take? Mormons are fond of using the supposedly brief period of
time in which the BOM was written to suggest that it could only have been done
by divine means, and now you have him doing lengthy comparisons between the two
books as an integral part of his translation process. This is sheer speculation
and is not supported in any way by any historical account of the translation
process - certainly none that I am aware of. You are taking great license in
attempting to account for the extensive presence of Bible passages in the Book
of Mormon, especially considering the emphasis on relible historical
documentation that seems to be the norm in this conference. 

>    It has been freely admitted by LDS scholars that Joseph Smith very
>    probably *did* refer to the Bible when Book of Mormon prophets were
>    quoting things that were similar to that found in the Bible.

I find it fascinating that in order to maintain the credibility of Joseph
Smith, LDS scholars are having to cast doubt upon the historical accounts
of the Book of Mormon's translation process.

>    Apparently, when the *ideas* matched, Joseph *did* copy those verses
>    word for word. 

Yes, apparently so. From every account that I have read, it is abundantly clear
that the translation (whether word-for-word or "thoughts and ideas") came
directly from Joseph Smith as he employed his stones in the translation
process. The fact that the use of the Bible as a major resource is not
mentioned, yet clear to anyone who compares the two books, means that the
accounts of the translation process are grossly misleading, for the text of the
Bible was obviously *heavily* employed in the creation of the Book of Mormon. 

If we have not yet fully established that the Book of Mormon is not genuine,
then we have at least proven the accounts of its origin to be inaccurate, 
erroneous and misleading, with at least one "plain and precious" truth missing 
from it - the major role played by the Bible.

Ed


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Re: Note 80.4 by  CASV05::PRESTON

>   -< The 'Raca' Problem >-
>
>   In 3 Nephi chapter 12 we find what appears to be the text of the Sermon
>   on the Mount from Matthew chapter 5. In the passage where Christ speaks
>   against anger, we read "And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca,
>   shall be in danger of the council". The texts from both the Book of
>   Mormon and Matthew are identical...

    You say the verses are identical in the Bible and Book of Mormon.
    Not so. I've marked the differences with *'s.
    
         But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother
         *without a cause* shall be in danger of *the* judgment: and
         whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger
         of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be
         in danger of hell fire.  Matthew 5:22 
    
         But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother
         shall be in danger of *his* judgment. And whosoever shall say
         to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and
         whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell
         fire. 3 Nephi 12:22 
                                    
>   ...even to the word "Raca", which is the Greek rendering of an Aramaic
>   word which is a term of utter vilification, such as
>   "good-for-nothing-empty-headed-idiot". 
>       
>   The problem is that in the 1611 King James Version, the translators
>   decided to leave the word just as it appears in the source document,
>   yet somehow this identical word appears in the passage from the Book of
>   Mormon. The question that begs to be answered is this: How does an
>   Aramaic colloquialism find its way into the English translation of a
>   book that was written in a lost Egyptian dialect, by an author who did
>   not speak Aramaic? 

    I guess I don't see the problem with this, in the context of recent
    postings regarding the method of translation of the Book of Mormon.
    There are a number of possible explanations for this.
    
    Joseph Smith was not trying to translate *words*, but rather ideas. If
    an Aramaic word found in the Bible expresses the idea, there is nothing
    wrong with him using it. The Word of God is not given for us to debate
    over individual words, but to convey teachings that God would have us
    understand and follow. The only valid question here is, does it convey
    the idea clearly? The King James translators thought so, and so, too,
    did Joseph Smith. 
    
    The Book of Mormon teaches that Jesus Christ himself came among the
    people in ancient America and taught the people the same teachings that
    he taught in Palestine. Many of these teachings were recorded in the
    Book of Mormon. It should not be surprising to find them to be similar
    to those found in the Bible. If Christ chose to use the word Raca in
    Palestine, he could just as well have chosen to use it in America. 

    In addition, it is not uncommon for words from one language to find
    their way into other languages. "Raca" is a word that suggests contempt
    and derision, in both the Aramaic and the Greek. In the original Semite
    tongue, it means vain or empty. Certain portions of the Old Testament
    were written in Aramaic, and it is probable that Jesus and his
    disciples spoke Galilean Aramaic. The people who wrote the Book of
    Mormon came from Jerusalem, and it would not be too incredible to find
    some Aramaic words adapted into their language. How many of the words
    we use in English have their roots in other languages? 

>   The only logical explanation seems to be that it was in fact copied
>   from the King James Bible, word-for-word, and not a translation at all. 
    
    The passage you refer to is a good example of how the verses are *not*
    all copied verbatim, since the Book of Mormon version of that verse
    leaves out "without a cause", and changes "the judgment" to "his
    judgment". 
    
    It has been freely admitted by LDS scholars that Joseph Smith very
    probably *did* refer to the Bible when Book of Mormon prophets were
    quoting things that were similar to that found in the Bible.
    Apparently, when the *ideas* matched, Joseph *did* copy those verses
    word for word. However, when they did *not* match the ideas precisely,
    the verses were rendered differently. This process of comparing texts
    during translation is commonly used by translators, including the
    translators of the Bible itself. 
    
    The fact that not all of the verses are found the same does lend
    support to Joseph's claim that the translation was done by the gift and
    power of God, for he did not blindly copy all of the verses as they are
    in the Bible, but carefully compared the texts and relied upon the
    revelation of God to show how the verses should be translated. 

    Does the incidence of the word "Raca" in the Book of Mormon translation
    of the Savior's teachings to the Nephites destroy the credibility of
    the Book of Mormon? I don't think so.
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

>If his mission was to restore "plain" truths, why then does he resort to using
>obscure words from foreign languages? 

I'm sure that Joseph Smith saw no problem with using RACA.  It is quite 
possible that no English word equivalent exists for the word.  The meaning
of the scripture comes across sufficiently whether RACA or fool or whatever
similar word is used, as has been pointed out with other versions of the 
Bible.  The other versions of the Bible can be helpful in coming to
understand the meaning of the scripture.  And, Mormons are encouraged to 
study other versions of the Bible (including the Apocrypha) to gain extra 
perception, keeping in mind that there could be errors.

>Why did he not
>translate it to make the meaning plain? It should have been easy enough. No, it
>doesn't convey the idea clearly, not in the KJV or the Book of Mormon. 

A more accurate definition of RACA is probably not a big deal as far as the 
Gospel is concerned.  Taken in context, the idea presented is already plain
to the casual reader of the KJV or the Book of Mormon.

>Obviously the meaning was *not* plain, even to him. Had JS
>translated the word properly, if it even could have been rendered as "Raca" in
>"reformed Egyptian", you could have pointed to it as an excellent example of 
>how he made obscure truths plain, but since he didn't, you cannot. 

An accurate definition or word-equivalent for RACA is, in my opinion, not
necessarily a truth.  It is a word to describe a concept of the times that
has been passed down to present-day.  It was a word created by man to express
a worldly thought, not by God to express an eternal truth.  It was used in
the Bible to aid in expressing an eternal truth in such a way that could be
understood by the world of the time.  We don't need a more accurate 
understanding of RACA to grasp the plain truth found in the scripture.

>Let me get this straight, now you are saying that, in spite of the *many*
>identical passages found between the BOM and the KJV Bible, because *some* of
>them are slightly different, this somehow provides us *further* basis for
>believing that he did this by some power given by God? And on what do you
>base your belief that he "carefully compared the texts"? Do you realize how
>long that would take? 

Joseph Smith was unable to complete a thorough comparison of the text as he
was murdered before its completion.  Even so, Mormons feel that it is 
sufficient for them to learn what is necessary for salvation with the things 
that were revealed and with continuing revelation.  As to proofs, whether these
things are true via similarity or difference with the Bible is not sufficient
proof of truth of the Book of Mormon.  Arguments can be made for or against
the Bibile or the Book of Mormon based on these.  Both sides have sound logic.
Neither side will be able to cause the other to budge by trying to prove the
other side illogical.

>I find it fascinating that in order to maintain the credibility of Joseph
>Smith, LDS scholars are having to cast doubt upon the historical accounts
>of the Book of Mormon's translation process.

Cast doubt?  The scholars are trying to understand the accounts.  They are
using the accounts, not destroying them.  And much of what they find is
serving to remove doubt about the authenticity of the translation process.

>The fact that the use of the Bible as a major resource is not
>mentioned, yet clear to anyone who compares the two books, means that the
>accounts of the translation process are grossly misleading, for the text of the
>Bible was obviously *heavily* employed in the creation of the Book of Mormon. 

Not mentioned?  Why was it necessary to mention the blatantly obvious? 
There is plenty of reference to Biblical scripture.  Many of the scriptures in 
the D&C were a result of inquiry about both sets of scriptures during the 
translation process.  Nowhere did Joseph Smith claim that the Bible was not a 
major aid in the translation process.  


Steve

    Re: Note 81.21 by CASV05::PRESTON 
    
    Hi Ed,
    
>If you read 80.4 more carefully, you will see that I specifically quoted the
>passage, "And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of
>the council". It is identical in both books and is the passage I was referring
>to. I am aware of the differences that you flagged, and do not feel that they
>amount to much one way or the other in the making of my point. 
    
    I see what you mean. However, I thought your original point was, in
    effect, "Joseph Smith copied much of the Book of Mormon word-for-word
    straight out of the Bible", but then you use an example of a verse that
    is *not* copied word for word to make your point (although the *part*
    of the verse containing Raca is word for word the same). 
    
    Yes, the differences between the versions of these verses are minor,
    but perhaps significant, if we think about it from the point of view
    that says that Joseph Smith was careful to get the exact meaning of
    what was on the Gold plates, even if it differed slightly from the
    Bible version of a similar passage. 
    
>If his mission was to restore "plain" truths, why then does he resort to using
>obscure words from foreign languages? Most modern translations of the Bible do
>*not* use the word "Raca", because nobody today knows what it means. 
    
    Finding the word Raca in the Book of Mormon is not a big deal to me.
    Seems like a nit. I find it in my Bible, too. It's ok with me if it's
    there. I suppose you can fault Joseph Smith for using the same word as
    the Bible does, if you want to, but I don't. 
    
>And on what do you
>base your belief that he "carefully compared the texts"? Do you realize how
>long that would take? 

    It doesn't seem like it would take that long to come across a verse,
    look at the Bible rendition of the verse, and then determine whether or
    not the meanings agree. Especially when you consider that only about
    seven percent of the Book of Mormon consists of passages similar to
    those found in the Bible.
    
>and now you have him doing lengthy comparisons between the two
>books as an integral part of his translation process. This is sheer speculation
    
    Good point. This is speculation on the part of LDS scholars. Joseph
    Smith said very little about the manner of translating.
         
         Relative to the manner of translating the Book of Mormon the
         Prophet himself has said but little. "Through the medium of
         the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift and
         power of God," is the most extended published statement made
         by him upon the subject. 
         
         A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of
         Latter-day Saints, by B.H. Roberts, p 126
        
    He never said he did or did not refer to the Bible during the
    translation. Apparently, the only thing that Joseph himself felt was
    important for people to know was that the Book of Mormon was translated
    by the gift and power of God. To know if that claim is true, one must
    ask God. 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich
    
    P.S. I have posted a related note in 62.10 regarding the Bible passages
    found in the Book of Mormon.

re: 80.5

>If Joseph Smith did not supplement the Book of Mormon by copying from the
>King James Translation then why does the Book of Mormon include the King
>James error of translation which renders Isaiah 4:5: "For upon all the glory
>shall be a defence"  (see II Nephi 14:5)

The implication is that it was necessary to copy sections of the Bible to
supplement (add length to?) the Book of Mormon.  As note 62.10 points out, 
38 pages out of 531 pages (about 7%) compare closely with the scriptures in 
the Bible.  What deficiency or incompleteness would be in the Book of Mormon 
that would require Joseph Smith to supplement by quoting sections of the 
Bible?  It has already been suggested that it is to bear testimony of the 
Bible's contents.  I don't understand why Joseph Smith would perceive need 
to increase the length by only 7%.  If the intent is to 'pad' the Book of 
Mormon, why didn't he quote more?  There are over 1000 pages in the Old 
Testament and over 300 pages in the New Testament.  He could have quoted
less than half of these and doubled the size of the Book of Mormon.

The information in the note is interesting, but I don't feel that it
refutes the translation.  To do that it should probably be shown that the 
differences in translation result in significant differences in meaning.  
The use of 'defence' and 'canopy', or 'torn' and 'swept away' do not
appear to me to detract from the significant concepts in the scriptures.

As an aside, during translation from one language to another, sometimes a
direct, word-for-word translation can preserve a one-to-one correspondence
between words, but the meanings can become incorrect.  To compensate,
translators sometimes have to use different words so that the correct meaning
can be conveyed.  That is, the translation can be incorrect even though 
the words can be looked up in a cross-language dictionary and verified.  
(For example, to say that a seat is 'saved', I could choose either 'sparet' or
'frelst' in Danish.  But, the latter implies that the seat has been 'saved'
in a religious or spiritual sense and would yield an incorrect translation.  
Yet, one-to-one correspondence is preserved with the English word
'saved'.)  This is partly because of the links between the interpretations
of individual words and context.  So, it can sometimes be that though an 
accurate one-for-one substitution of all words exists, it is necessary to 
substitute or add other words to preserve meaning.  


Steve

    Re: 80.5
    
>   ...why does the Book of Mormon include the King James error of
>   translation... 
 
    The LDS church has long said that "We believe the Bible to be the word
    of God, as far as it is translated correctly". We have received much
    criticism for qualifying the Bible in this way. Now we seem to be
    seeing some agreement on the subject of Bible mistranslation. :-) 

    In line with what Steve said, Isaiah wrote in beautiful Hebrew poetic
    style. Translating the poetry of one language to another is not easy.
    One has to be more concerned with the ideas and images conveyed than
    the actual word-for-word rendition of the text. Are the images that
    Isaiah conveys substantially affected by these words (defence vs.
    canopy and torn vs. refuse)? Perhaps so, perhaps not. For me, they are
    not. 
                                        
    If Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of
    God, as he said, then it could be argued that the translation he did of
    these passages was *sufficiently accurate* in God's eyes as they are
    currently rendered. 
    
    We do not say the Book of Mormon is perfect. It was written by men, it
    was translated by men, all of whom had the benefit of God's help, but
    they were not perfect. Moroni wrote this on the title page of the Book
    of Mormon: 
                                                               
         ...it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi,...
         written by the spirit of prophecy and revelation - Written and
         sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be
         destroyed - To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the
         interpretation thereof - sealed by the hand of Moroni, and
         hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the
         Gentile - The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.
         
         ...to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the
         CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations -
         And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men;
         wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found
         spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

    Perhaps a more important question to ask about the Book of Mormon than
    "Why is this word there or not there?" is, "Does the Book of Mormon
    serve to convince those who read it that JESUS is the CHRIST?". The
    Book of Mormon has greatly strengthened my testimony of Jesus Christ,
    and for that I am thankful. 
    
    In His Love,
    Rich

    RE .24
    
    >...it should probably be shown that the differences in translation
    >result in significant differences in meaning. 
    
	According to note 62.0 Joseph Smith prayed and asked God if
    he had the correct meaning. If he did, Joseph Smith would put
    the meaning into his own words.
    
	It is a three step process according to 62.0
    
    	1.  Form the meaning
    	2.  Pray if meaning correct - if not go to step 1
        3.  Put it into words.

    Now let's look at the Scripture in question in ISAIAH 5:25
    
    	The basic meaning is this:
    
    		and their dead bodies were as dung and sweepings in
    the midst of the streets.
    
    Now if the King James authors had of translated this verse correctly
    they could have used a number of words like REFUSE,TRASH,FILTH,DUNG,
    GARBAGE.  Joesph Smith could have formed anyone of these words into
    images in his mind and used them.  And he should of if he was
    translating by the power of God.

    Torn is a verb that is in no way synonymous with the noun REFUSE.

    
    So how does the correct meaning become the same word for word 
    incorrect meaning found in the King James version?
      
        
   re: .5
    
    >...to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST,
    the ETERNAL GOD,...
	
    >Does the Book of Mormon serve to convince those who read it that
    >Jesus is the Christ?
    
    This is another note in itself, but ask yourself does the BOM and
    the LDS church convince/teach that JESUS is the ETERNAL GOD?       

    

    Re: .26

>   This is another note in itself, but ask yourself does the BOM and
>   the LDS church convince/teach that JESUS is the ETERNAL GOD?       

    Yes.

    RE .26
    
>    So how does the correct meaning become the same word for word 
>    incorrect meaning found in the King James version?
      
It becomes the same word for word because Joseph Smith saw no reason that
the KJV words could not be used since they preserved the intent of the 
scriptures.  Joseph Smith, if anything, verified that the meaning of the 
scripture was correct in the KJV.  These particular words amount to
trivial differences, not unlike other trivial differences found in the
Bible. (Compare Matt. 27:5 and Acts 1:18, or compare the many differences
in translation resolved in the KJV with footnotes indicating alternate
wording, most of which are trivial differences.)

        
Steve    

Re .26

I've created note 97 for a discussion of The Godhead and have added my
comments to that note.

Allen

    RE .28
    
    So what your saying is that the Book of Mormon is a paraphrase version
    of the plates and that sometimes the Bible was used as the standard for
    accuracy of the ancient Scriptures even though Orson Pratt said that almost
    every verse has been corrupted and mutilated.
    (The Seer, 1854,p 213)

    Why should anyone try to translate the ancient Scriptures word for
    word as the King James translators attempted to do?  Joseph Smith
    didn't think it necessary in translating the Book of Mormon!
    (according to other notes in this conference)

    Or did he...?
    
    According to many historical accounts that I mentioned in note 62.2,
    Joseph Smith did translate the Book of Mormon word for word.
    
    Now D & C 9:8-10 is used to suggest that Joseph Smith did not
    translate word for word, but only ideas.  First of all this is
    not a revelation to Joseph Smith, but to Oliver Cowdery.
    The second thing is that there is no mention that the translator
    is to use his own words to write the Scripture.  
    
    		...you cannot write that which is sacred save it be
    given you from me.
    
    Again no mention that Joseph is to choose his own words.  If this
    revelation also applies to Joseph Smith, then he can't write except
    what God gives him to write. 

    So where is even the mention of using the King James to help with
    the wording?   Emma Smith didn't mention it.  In fact she said to
    her son:
    
    	In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day,
    after sitting by the table close to him, he was sitting with his
    face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour
    after hour with nothing between us."
    (The Saints Harold, May 19, 1888 p.310)

    So where is the historical evidence that Joseph Smith did not
    translate word for word, and that he used the Bible to help
    him write?
    

> I'm sure that Joseph Smith saw no problem with using RACA.  It is quite 
> possible that no English word equivalent exists for the word.

Your reasoning is not very well thought out, Steve, because you are
overlooking a few things:

First of all, there are many words for which there is not an exact English
equivalent but they are translated just the same. Also, you have 
forgotten that the word is translated easily enough in other non-KJV Bibles, 
so that diminishes your hypotesis even more.

Secondly, you (and Rich) are assuming that the word somehow came 
through the translation process intact, to be transliterated into the
letters 'RACA'. This is highly unlikely, if not impossible, due to the
nature of ancient Egyptian modes of writing and the method of translation
you present in note 62, of 'studying out the meaning' in his mind.

Also, in order for this word to have made its way into the Book of Mormon
untranslated, as you suggest, it would not only have had to come to Joseph
Smith letter-by-letter, he would have had to have enough scholarly
understanding of its meaning and all possible English renderings, to have made 
the conscious decision that 'Raca' was better. This is entirely inconsistent
with the picture of Joseph Smith presented by the Mormon church, of an
unschooled lad in his early twenties at the time of the translation of the Book
of Mormon. 

The other alternative is that he had a KJV Bible in front of him as he made the
translation, and somehow picked up 'Raca' from Matthew's gospel. The helpful
suggestion has been made that it was somehow part of a refinement process that
he employed, comparing what he found in the Book of Mormon with the Bible as he
went along, then copying from the Bible when convenient for him. That still
supposes a level of education far in excess of what is claimed for him. It is
all the more difficult to accept when you consider that the entire translation,
530 pages, was done in about 60 days (according to Le Grand Richards in his
book, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder). Translating 500+ pages of text in 60
days is quite a feat in itself, let alone searching out and thoroughly
comparing relevant and similar KJV passages. All this in 60 days? By himself?

> Joseph Smith was unable to complete a thorough comparison of the text as he
> was murdered before its completion.  

I was referring to the Book of Mormon, not the Inspired Bible, that's another
topic entirely...

>> The fact that the use of the Bible as a major resource is not mentioned, 
>> yet clear to anyone who compares the two books, means that the accounts 
>> of the translation process are grossly misleading, for the text of the
>> Bible was obviously *heavily* employed in the creation of the Book of Mormon.

> Not mentioned?  Why was it necessary to mention the blatantly obvious? 
> There is plenty of reference to Biblical scripture.  Many of the scriptures 
> in the D&C were a result of inquiry about both sets of scriptures during the 
> translation process.  Nowhere did Joseph Smith claim that the Bible was not a 
> major aid in the translation process.  

Why was it necessary to mention the blatantly obvious? Because it *appears* to
be blatantly obvious plagiarism, and nothing more. So far, in explanation of
the 'blatantly obvious' we've been given maybes, probablies and possiblies, but
nothing solid to go on. The fact that it is nowhere mentioned that the Bible
was used *is* signifigant. You are grasping at straws if you are hoping that
because something is *not* mentioned then that gives some ground for presuming 
that it *might* have happened. 

> As to proofs, whether these things are true via similarity or difference 
> with the Bible is not sufficient proof of truth of the Book of Mormon.  

Maybe not, but it's a good start.

> Arguments can be made for or against the Bibile or the Book of Mormon 
> based on these.  Both sides have sound logic.

I don't want to get into that 'logic' thing again, at least not the formal 
logic merry-go-round. Perhaps you mean logic in the sense of reasoning. 
Anyway, I must disagree with you. I feel that your reasoning could be a lot 
better. This is not a shot at you, just an observation...

> Neither side will be able to cause the other to budge by trying to prove the
> other side illogical.

I was going to wholeheartedly agree with you, but actually, I'm not so sure.
Yes, the Bible says, 'The sluggard is wiser in his own conceit then seven who
can render a reason', and 'The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a
wise man listens...". But, let's not assume we have all dug in our heels for
good and become 'wise in our own conceit'. If I didn't think I had some valid
points to make, I wouldn't be taking all this time. Also, my entire belief
system doesn't stand or fall on one or two sessions of reasoning over tough
questions, but it ultimately *must* stand up to reason, or it is a lousy belief
system. (I also would leave real quick if I thought I was talking to a brick
wall.)

Anyhow, sorry for the lateness of this reply. I am a very busy camper these
days, and while I would like to respond much more quickly, it just isn't
happening.......

Ed

In responding to notes .30 and .31 I found that there would be repetition of 
points already made were I to respond point by point.  The observer can 
carefully read my previous responses in this note and the responses in note 
62.  The only new point to mention is that transliteration has not been 
implied nor mentioned as part of the translation process in my responses.  
If anything, it has been refuted in my assertions about translation in general.


Steve

Re 80.7

Hi Ed,

In notes 115.10 and 115.11, I promised to review Quinn's book and an issue
of BYU Studies that concern Joseph's use of a seer stone and related issues.
I thought I'd mention that I haven't forgotten my promise; I'm just slow
getting it done.  It's important for both LDS and non-LDS to understand this
topic in correct historical context, and both sources are very useful to that
end.

Allen

    Re: Note 80.7 by CASV05::PRESTON
    
    Hi Ed,
    
>Also interesting is the mention that Joseph Smith came into possession of
>the plates, and the means to translate them, in September of 1827. This 
>certainly seems to make the "miracle of translation" a great deal less 
>remarkable, considering that he apparently had these things for 21 months
>before the Book of Mormon finally came out on June 30, 1829.

    You have raised a very interesting historical point with this comment.
    It is true that Joseph Smith obtained the plates in 1827 and began the
    translation of them shortly thereafter. However, upon completion of the
    first 116 pages of the manuscript, Martin Harris took the manuscript to
    show his wife and others, after he repeatedly begged Joseph to ask the
    Lord for permission to do so. 
    
    At first the Lord said no, but when Joseph continued to ask, the Lord
    relented, on strict conditions. Martin Harris did not keep his promise
    to return when he said he would, and the manuscript was lost. The Lord
    required Joseph Smith to relinquish the plates for a time to the angel
    Moroni, and when he finally got them back again, he was instructed that
    he was not to translate that portion  of the plates again. 
    
    The miraculous translation refers to the short time required to
    translate the pages of the Book of Mormon that we now have. The short
    time referred to does not include the time consumed in translating the
    first 116 pages, which were lost, or the time that the plates were back
    in the possession of the angel Moroni. As stated in the article that I
    quoted in note 178.1 the elapsed time in translation of this part of
    the plates is well corroborated by other historical information. 
    
    Rich