Tobin wrote:
I think you are missing the point. One of the chief criticisms aimed at the Book of Mormon is that it is not perfect. Fundamentalists like LittleNipper don't believe in the Book of Mormon because it fails to be a perfect book like they believe the Bible is. Other Mormon critics also make this assumption even if they don't believe in the Bible or God. And if Joseph Smith was not perfect (ie Joseph Smith was God's sock puppet) in how he conveyed, then it must not be scripture. My point was if God can compel us to be perfect in one thing, why doesn't God compel us to be perfect all the time? The answers from LittleNipper is God is just fickle about it. He can force man to perfectly convey the Bible, but nowhere else. Why? Because he's decided not to. I find this view to be patently absurd and it implies that man is just God's toy. God allows us to do evil and then judges us for it, not because we choose to do evil (or good). No, instead God chose to do this to us for his own purposes (and possibly amusement).
While the latter is a possibility, it is certainly not an attractive one and also does not comport with the nature of God as described in the Bible. If such is the case, then humanity is doomed to be pawns in the hands of a God who is out to trick us and has the power to thoroughly do so.
So I agree with Tobin (surprised Tobin?). I don't think God is toying with us. Marg, I'm sure, will agree with that too, except that marg is convinced that God cannot toy with us because God does not exist. (Unless she's changed her views on that recently) (by the way, hi marg!)
In terms of the KJV Bible vs. Book of Mormon/"perfect book" vs. "non perfect" neither is. At least in their current state. But that tells us very little about how they were in their respective original states. It only tells us that in the intervening translations, God was not involved
enough to prevent mistakes from entering the picture.
So from the perfect vs. non perfect point of view, I agree that neither the KJV Bible nor the Book of Mormon in their current states are "perfect;" from which it follows that if we are going to be consistent and we accept the KJV Bible as scripture, we should also accept the Book of Mormon as scripture. But that is a seriously incomplete picture. There are additional factors that must be considered, and when they are considered, the Book of Mormon fails while the Bible (regardless of version) does not.
In their haste to defend Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon from rabid critics like myself, a common misconception nearly always occurs among TBMs when I bring up the "cherubims" "seraphims" objection. They erroneously jump to the conclusion that I am suggesting the Book of Mormon is not scripture
because it contains errors. That is not quite what I am suggesting. But the difference is a subtle one, so the mistake is easy to make.
For the sake of discussion, I can grant
the possibility that Nephi and Alma, etc. were inspired prophets on the same level as say, Moses or David. I can grant
the possibility that they wrote their respective portions of the Book of Mormon and that they were inspired in doing so and they produced a fairly error-free version of that. I can even grant that the originals need not be completely error free, for, as Tobin points out, God can use imperfect vessels to communicate His truth.
So then... aren't I weakening my own criticism of the Book of Mormon with such a generous concession? Not really. Why not? Because of the testimony of early Book of Mormon witnesses. Because of the original claims of the divine manner in which the Book of Mormon was allegedly translated into English. As Skousen points out,
they were unanimous in claiming that
God did it. Joseph merely read the words
that God made appear in the stone. But this is extremely problematic for guys like Tobin. The problem is not that rabid critics like Roger or dogmatic fundamentalists are imposing an unrealistic standard for the Book of Mormon to live up to (as Tobin would have us believe). Instead, the problem is that early Book of Mormon witnesses -
True Believing Mormons who were there in the room when this was all happening and in some cases participated -
those are the ones who are imposing an impossible standard for the Book of Mormon to live up to. This is why Joseph Smith defenders like Tobin protest against the testimonies of their own founding fathers (and mothers) and ultimately must reject the "unrealistic" portion of their testimonies, and instead passionately cling to the D & C 9 version - all the while ignoring the significance of the contradiction between the two versions.
What I am suggesting is that it's highly unlikely that God is going to introduce errors into the text - and I think we can all agree on that. On the contrary, we would expect that God knows how to speak English and is quite familiar with English grammar. Therefore, to such an extent
that we do find errors in the 1830 version of the Book of Mormon, I think we can all agree that they came from human beings, not God.
I suggest that "cherubims" and "seraphims" are blatant errors because they are redundant plurals. I suggest that when you understand the nature of the error, you realize there is no way around this but to acknowledge it as an error. Tobin, on the other hand, disagrees, because he believes that if it can be shown that "cherubims" and "seraphims"
were used properly by other early English translators, then, it follows that
God is free to use the same words in the Book of Mormon, (or Joseph Smith is free to use the words, depending on how much one wants to connect the text with Joseph Smith) and what I am identifying as a problem is really not a problem. So if Tobin is right, he saves the Book of Mormon from unfair criticism.
This also has an impact on the allegation of Biblical borrowing - which, amazingly, is the topic of this thread. This is important, because if "cherubims" and "seraphims" are mistakes (as I suggest) then it follows that God would have known better than to allow them into the text of the Book of Mormon. The testimony of David Whitmer and Emma Smith and others suggests that it should have been impossible for these errors to have been introduced into the text because, according to their testimony, God was actively checking for errors and would not allow the translation to proceed unless everything was correct. The only way these errors could have escaped God's watchful eye is if God didn't understand that "cherubims" and "seraphims" are redundant plurals OR God was not a part of the process at all. I think we can rule out an ignorant God. Which leaves us with only one possibility: God was not involved and the error was introduced by a human. But which human?
On the other hand, if Tobin is correct and every English translator worth his salt freely used the terms "cherubims" and "seraphims" and, more importantly, that
this usage itself renders the terms grammatically correct, then he saves the Book of Mormon whether God OR Joseph Smith is responsible for the text. Therefore, the only way this works for Tobin, is if the terms "cherubims" and "seraphims"
are not mistakes. God is, of course, free to use the terms if they are grammatically correct, and Joseph is obviously free to use them for the same reason and, since the words are correct, it does not follow that someone must have copied them from the KJV Bible.
So it makes a big difference whether or not these terms are grammatically correct or whether they are errors. If they are indeed errors (and they are!) then Tobin's line of defense of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon suffers a huge blow. If he's correct, he's singlehandedly saved the Book of Mormon from an unfair attack.
Now, let's consider the possibility that I am correct when I suggest that "cherubims" and "seraphims" are mistakes and there's no getting around that. What are the implications
for borrowing text? (The topic of this thread) The implications are this: The errors could not have come from God. Since they are errors that DO appear in the KJV Bible
and the Book of Mormon, and since we find them immersed within other KJV - Book of Mormon parallels (and even quotes from the KJV Bible), it is reasonable to conclude that whoever produced this portion of the Book of Mormon
was copying portions of the text from the KJV Bible.
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."
- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.