New official essay on Book of Mormon translation, they’re still lying.

[I Have Questions]

It’s sadly just more of the same.

The Book of Mormon came to us through a series of miraculous events. It is the translation of an ancient record engraved on plates that was preserved for centuries and entrusted to Joseph Smith by an angel named Moroni.

As you can probably tell from this introduction, this new essay is not going to deal with the fact that the Book of Mormon contains plagiarised KJV Bible content that was only written in the 17th Century.

Another object, which Joseph Smith discovered in the ground sometime before he retrieved the gold plates, was a small brown stone, which was commonly called a “seer stone.” During the centuries leading up to Joseph Smith’s time, many Christians believed objects such as seer stones could be used to find lost objects or to search for buried treasure. Joseph himself had used his stone for similar purposes.

No reference is provided to support the assertion that “many Christians believed objects such as seer stones could be used to find lost objects or to search for buried treasure”. Joseph didn’t use his stone for “similar purposes”, Joseph used his seer stone to hunt, unsuccessfully, for buried treasure. The other people who used seer stones were superstitious folk magic types. I get why the Church is trying to portray Joseph’s treasure seeking as “normal” and “commonplace” within his environment, but it wasn’t. It was folk magic, occult, “witchcraft” type stuff.

According to eyewitness sources, Joseph sometimes used the interpreters or spectacles to translate. Other firsthand sources suggest he sometimes translated with a single seer stone. These objects could apparently be used interchangeably and worked in much the same way, and Joseph seems to have used them both at different times.

Again, more slippery phraseology. The “magic spectacles” were only reported to have been used up to the point the 116 pages were “lost”. So the Book of Mormon we have today was (supposedly) produced only using the failed treasure seeking seer stone.

Are the testimonies of the Book of Mormon witnesses reliable?
In addition to Joseph Smith, 11 men testified that they saw the Book of Mormon plates.

They weren’t just “11 men”. They were 11 members of Joseph’s family and very close friends. And, as we know, witness testimony is (especially when the witnesses are connected and their testimony is coordinated through a single, influential person) notoriously unreliable.

I don’t understand why they’ve rehashed the usual weak arguments, and once again committed the lie of omission by failing to address the verbatim KJV Bible content. That they have done so tells you they don’t even have bad explanations for it, let alone good ones, and they do not want to draw members' attention to it.

Why can’t the Church just tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

[Rivendale]

The last 4 or 5 years top leaders and apologists have backtracked to early Christian claims of miraculous events and made parallels with the odd claims of Mormonism. Lawrence Corbridge's Stand Forever is one example.

The primary questions are the most important. Everything else is subordinate.

In the same talk he uses a false equivalents to bolster the validity of a supernatural event.

That one could see on a stone or through a special lens the modern translation of ancient text written on plates of gold is far less amazing than the human eye.

It is much more probable to explain the various forms of organic evolution as opposed to a stone eliminating English words that originated in the distant past. If a person is open to a magic world view such as dowsing then seer stones, parting Seas and the dead rising doesn't take much of a leap.

[Moksha]

The “magic spectacles” were only reported to have been used up to the point the 116 pages were “lost”. So the Book of Mormon we have today was (supposedly) produced only using the failed treasure-seeking seer stone.

Why can’t the Church just tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Because alleging magic spectacles is a fraud.

[MG 2.0]

It’s sadly just more of the same.

The Book of Mormon came to us through a series of miraculous events. It is the translation of an ancient record engraved on plates that was preserved for centuries and entrusted to Joseph Smith by an angel named Moroni

Yes or no. Are you at all open to the possibility of gold plates, angels, and most importantly, God? If so, then there is room to talk. If not, the conversations is over.

Isn't it?

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

It’s sadly just more of the same.

Yes or no. Are you at all open to the possibility of gold plates, angels, and most importantly, God? If so, then there is room to talk. If not, the conversations is over.

Isn't it?

Regards,
MG

MG, are you at all open to the possibility that God would send an angel with a flaming sword to make Joseph Smith practice polygamy under the threat of death? If so, the conversation is over.

[I Have Questions]

It’s sadly just more of the same.

Yes or no. Are you at all open to the possibility of gold plates, angels, and most importantly, God? If so, then there is room to talk. If not, the conversations is over.

Isn't it?

Regards,
MG

This thread isn’t about me. It’s about the Book of Mormon translation essay that the Church has just put out. Please stay on topic. The new essay ignores the fact that there is plagiarised KJV Bible in the Book of Mormon that only dates to the 17th Century. Why, in your opinion, is the Church continuing to lie by omission?

[MG 2.0]

Yes or no. Are you at all open to the possibility of gold plates, angels, and most importantly, God? If so, then there is room to talk. If not, the conversations is over.

Isn't it?

Regards,
MG

This thread isn’t about me. It’s about the Book of Mormon translation essay that the Church has just put out. Please stay on topic. The new essay ignores the fact that there is plagiarised KJV Bible in the Book of Mormon that only dates to the 17th Century. Why, in your opinion, is the Church continuing to lie by omission?

I understand. But my question remains. It has everything to do with how your questions are approached. You seem to be approaching your concerns from the position of no angels, no plates(artifacts), no God. If that is the case then, again, there really is nowhere to go in the continuation of our conversation on this point/topic.

Others may want to engage you on the basis of some of the same presumptions that you are bringing to the conversation. That's fine. But I don't see the conversation going into any new territory that I haven't seen before. If it does, I may reengage.

I don't expect the church to fully engage in issues that have not yet been resolved completely or there are varying points of view that could cause church wide contention and conflict. As it is we have Heartlanders and MesoAmericanists. We have young earth vs. old earth, etc. Bringing each problematic issue to the forefront might be a stumbling block for those that are not firmly grounded with their faith in Christ and His Gospel.

Faith in Jesus Christ and His Atonement/Mission comes first. Wouldn't you agree?

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

This thread isn’t about me. It’s about the Book of Mormon translation essay that the Church has just put out. Please stay on topic. The new essay ignores the fact that there is plagiarised KJV Bible in the Book of Mormon that only dates to the 17th Century. Why, in your opinion, is the Church continuing to lie by omission?

I don't expect the church to fully engage in issues that have not yet been resolved completely or there are varying points of view that could cause church wide contention and conflict.

Fully engage? The Church doesn’t even partially engage in the problem of KJV Bible content appearing, verbatim, in a record the Church claims was written 1,000 years earlier. And that’s because they don’t even have a bad answer for it, let alone a good one. It’s a smoking gun and the Church knows it. Everyone knows it.

[MG 2.0]

I don't expect the church to fully engage in issues that have not yet been resolved completely or there are varying points of view that could cause church wide contention and conflict.

Fully engage? The Church doesn’t even partially engage in the problem of KJV Bible content appearing, verbatim, in a record the Church claims was written 1,000 years earlier. And that’s because they don’t even have a bad answer for it, let alone a good one. It’s a smoking gun and the Church knows it. Everyone knows it.

KJV In the Book of Mormon is part of the revealed translation process. That being in conjunction with "the gift and power of God".

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Fully engage? The Church doesn’t even partially engage in the problem of KJV Bible content appearing, verbatim, in a record the Church claims was written 1,000 years earlier. And that’s because they don’t even have a bad answer for it, let alone a good one. It’s a smoking gun and the Church knows it. Everyone knows it.

KJV In the Book of Mormon is part of the revealed translation process. That being in conjunction with "the gift and power of God".

Regards,
MG

Nonsense. It’s verbatim copying of the KJV Bible, including syntax and errors made in the 17th Century. Stop being dishonest.