LDS

[jsfisher]

I apologize (perhaps you should, too--for character assassination).

It is not character assassination when it is the truth. Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon Church, was arrested and convicted of "glass looking". That makes him a con-artist, a crook, a charlatan.

In Joseph Smith's day, spelling, many definitions, and punctuation were not standardized. In fact, work on an acceptable dictionary of the English language, The Oxford English Dictionary, was not even started until 1857, under the direction of Prof. James Murray (he died before it was completed, some four decades later). Today, as you may know, the "Oxford" is the gold standard of English language dictionaries.

And Noah Webster published his first dictionary in 1828. Webster is the gold standard of English as spoken the United States. What's your point?

In light of the foregoing, your reproduction of the original introduction is irrelevant. Why? Because as later editions of the BoM were published, editors changed the introduction to clarify Joseph Smith's intended meaning.

Great. Publishers and editors are mind readers now. Be that as it may, they have still failed to put your final sentence in a paragraph of its own to give it the meaning you insist it carries.

They didn't. It doesn't.

They could clearly see (as could virtually anyone) that the last sentence was meant to summarize the entire introduction, not merely the Book of Ether. Common sense and context told them that. Why would Joseph Smith summarize only the Book of Ether in his introduction to the entire book? That makes no sense.

Many things in the Book of Mormon make no sense. However, the sentence in question makes perfect sense as it stands, supplementing the content of the second paragraph. You just want it to mean something different from what it does.

Consider, too, the original: "And now if there be fault...". Subjunctive with all its subtlety, but more importantly, 'fault' is in the singular. The modern version eliminates the subjunctive (a shame) and switches 'fault' to the plural. Sad, that, since it opens the door to bogus interpretations such as yours.

The singular fault a usage similar to how we might use the word, sin. "And if there be sin...". It refers to a collective failing of what precedes it in the same paragraph, the people of Jared. It is not a reference to individual faults of the translation.

There are, in fact, nine em dashes (1979 triple combination), and they are not functionally limited to signifying a conclusion.

Only three in the second paragraph, which was the context of my remark. You cannot resist a meaningless quibble for distraction, can you?

Em dashes are used to indicate a break or change in thought, an unfinished sentence, and, yes, to set off summaries or definitions. (Geraldine Woods, Webster's New World Punctuation: Simplified and Applied, p. 114; Wikipedia, "Dash," "em dash)

Certainly. The dashes later inserted into the original Joseph Smith are meant to separate varying parts of the paragraph. If they had wanted a completely unrelated item, they would have started a new paragraph.

Excuse me, but you err. You fail to recognize the non-standardization of punctuation in Joseph Smith's day (and for years thereafter), but more tellingly you cannot explain why the previous eight em dashes fail to yield to new paragraphs.

Why would I explain something that wasn't a part of anything I cited. It was all yours.

I'll be charitable: Consider the possibility that you may be in over your head.

I'll take that under advisement.

By the way, none of this denies that the LDS Church considers the Book of Mormon to be imperfect. Clearly it does, since it has revised so much of it. Support of that, though, doesn't come from where you cite.

The point of origin for this particular thread arc is your inability to clarify how your statement about the errancy of the Book of Mormon reconciles with the Articles of Faith. We will eventually return to that, I am sure.

 

[Pixel42]

Apparently, then, the critics are free to use any source they desire to savage the Book of Mormon, but they do not grant the same liberty to Mormons themselves.

Your and Janadele's definition of anti-Mormon sources seems to include the Book of Mormon itself, with the Book of Abraham as runner-up; these are by far the most cited sources by those here arguing against the validity of LDS teachings. Mostly because their contents are, indeed, the best arguments against its validity. Then there are standard texts on history, archeology, DNA analysis etc etc, plus court transcripts of Smith's own time, all of which are apparently also anti-Mormon sources.

So tell me: what source of the ample evidence which demolishes the validity of your church's beliefs and teachings wouldn't you dismiss out of hand as "anti-Mormon"?

You are, of course, free to quote any source you like, but when that source consists entirely of post hoc rationalisations rather than facts you can expect that to be pointed out.

 

[Pup]

In Joseph Smith's day, spelling, many definitions, and punctuation were not standardized. In fact, work on an acceptable dictionary of the English language, The Oxford English Dictionary, was not even started until 1857, under the direction of Prof. James Murray (he died before it was completed, some four decades later). Today, as you may know, the "Oxford" is the gold standard of English language dictionaries.

Off the top of my head, I'm thinking that Walker's Dictionary would be the dominant one in use in Joseph Smith's day, on both sides of the Atlantic (I think the first edition was in the late 18th century), though it was British-based. The first major person who wanted to standardize American spelling was Noah Webster, who published his American dictionary in 1828. It didn't receive much interest at first, though, until growing acceptance in the 1840s and later.

So while it's true that spelling and punctuation weren't standardized (and people even today argue over things like the Oxford comma, even on the same side of the Atlantic), early 19th century printed works in America were becoming more recognizable as the English we're familiar with. British spelling was still common, but the extra e's on the end of words were mostly dropped, as was the random capitalization of important words. The use of the "long s" was fading and y/thorn was long gone.

One main difference between typical handwritten and printed matter was that handwritten things used dashes where printed matter substituted periods, which causes the variations one might expect, when a typesetter used his judgment whether the writer meant a period or an actual em dash, and that's probably what's going on in the introduction. Side note: I spend part of almost every day reading early 19th century writing, either printed or handwritten. I see a lot of it.

Of course, even less literate people had to understand the shared meaning of words in order to communicate, even if their capitalization, spelling or punctuation was quirky. When it comes to meaning, dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive, following meaning set by those who use the language, rather than attempting to tell people what words mean. So definitions themselves can never really be standardized, since language usage itself sets the standard; the most one can do is use a contemporary dictionary published around the date something was written, or a little after that date, to help understand how the author was using words.

In light of the foregoing, your reproduction of the original introduction is irrelevant. Why? Because as later editions of the BoM were published, editors changed the introduction to clarify Joseph Smith's intended meaning. They could clearly see (as could virtually anyone) that the last sentence was meant to summarize the entire introduction, not merely the Book of Ether. Common sense and context told them that. Why would Joseph Smith summarize only the Book of Ether in his introduction to the entire book? That makes no sense.

While that's one possible interpretation of the introduction, another church-accepted interpretation is that the words are supposed to be Moroni's, not Joseph Smith's. For example:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=4&num=1&id=97

Having finished his task of abridgment,... Moroni then proceeded to add another paragraph to his title page. This was a logical necessity. Thus we read:...

[The full paragraph is quoted, ending] 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.
​

The full article, "Moroni the Lonely: The Story of the Writing of the Title Page to the Book of Mormon," by Sidney B. Sperry from Journal of Book of Mormon Studies is at the link above.

I'll be charitable: Consider the possibility that you may be in over your head.

Yes, we should all consider that.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Then why should anyone believe they are divinely inspired ?

There is nothing to distinguish them from any other made up story ..

And when was this introduction added? The earliest reference that I can find to the addition of an introduction to the BoM is the 1920 edition by James E. Talmage.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The Bible was the result of oral traditions that were told and retold and retold and written down and coppied and copied and copied and copied and... well, you get the picture.

The BofM was ostensibly dictated to Joseph Smith by the power of god. There is simply no comparison.

One analogy used to describe the Bible by some scholars is a collection of parts from multiple copies of screenplays from different points in the writing and refinement process that have been roughly edited together.

 

[asydhouse]

Well all this just goes to show that your god is totally incompetent. No wonder it failed to get a message to me in answer to my prayers, it can't even get through to its nominated prophet!

So when you and janadele tried to blame me for being subconsciously repelling god, you were trying in your uncommunicative way to let me know that it is the fault of your god's feebleness.

Fortunately, I've found that science gives me all the peace of mind that mormonism refuses to bestow. That's because science is a method of dissolving self-delusion.

Skyrider, here's a cliche for you (it's all you deserve): all this hot air in quibbling over clerical niceties ignores the real issue. You are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, while your ship disintegrates in hypocritical and lying apologies for the mess your god has dropped you in.

I'm laughing at you. I can't find it in my heart to pity you.

 

[Pup]

And when was this introduction added? The earliest reference that I can find to the addition of an introduction to the BoM is the 1920 edition by James E. Talmage.

You mean the introduction with the "faults of men" thing? It was there right from the start.

Actually, in looking for a scanned version of an early edition to show, I ran across something interesting. Here's the 1840 third edition:

http://books.google.com/books?id=R24NAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA5&output=html

Check it out. In that edition, the introduction is signed:

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.
MORONI

We have a repro copy of the 1830 edition, and there's no direct signature like that under the introduction itself, nor is there any in the modern edition. But the 1840 edition seems to make clear, like the Maxwell Institute article, that the introduction was written by Moroni, not Joseph Smith.

[The word "MORONI" appears over to the right, but I can't figure out how to do that here; it keeps putting it at the left.]

 

[jsfisher]

Fascinating stuff, Pup. Thank you.

[The word "MORONI" appears over to the right, but I can't figure out how to do that here; it keeps putting it at the left.]

You like this?

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.

MORONI​

 

[jsfisher]

And when was this introduction added? The earliest reference that I can find to the addition of an introduction to the BoM is the 1920 edition by James E. Talmage.

There seem to be two things that are called introduction. There is the title page which includes introductory remarks, including the "if there be fault" part, and there is the section labeled "Introduction".

The former has always been a part of the Book; the latter, as I understand things, was something the Church added much later. Perhaps we should refer to the former as the title page.

 

[Pup]

You like this?

How you do that?

Edited to add: I tried extra spaces, and tabs, and couldn't find a "right align" format button, so gave up.

 

[Olowkow]

You can find a huge amount of information about errors or changes to the Book of Mormon at this site. Apparently there are thousands of modern corrections addressing misspelled words, poor grammar, and regionalisms. It's likely to be considered an anti-Mormon site, but it appears to be largely just factual stuff.

One claim I found interesting concerns the possible origin of the name "Moroni". (Arabic: موروني ) This is a better map than the one depicted in the article. If you copy and paste the Arabic into the Google translator, and have it pronounced, it is eerily similar in pronunciation to the English.

Critics have often pointed out that there is a suspicious link between the hill Cumorah and the angel Moroni, and the Comoros Islands off the eastern coast of Mozambique, the capital of which is Moroni, and has been since before the Book of Mormon. Defenders of the Book of Mormon claim that this is only a coincidence, and that 'Comoros' in fact has very little correspondence with 'Cumorah'.



The fact of the matter is that prior to the French occupation of the late 1860's, Comoros was known by its Arabic name, Camora (sometimes also spelled Comora). It is thus more than a little suspicious to note that the 1830 Book of Mormon uniformly spells 'Cumorah' as 'Camorah'. See, for example, the original text of Moroni 6:2:



And I, Mormon, wrote an epistle unto the king of the Lamanites, and desired of him that he would grant unto us that we might gather together our people unto the land of Camorah, by the hill which was called Camorah, and there we would give them battle.

 

[Pup]

There seem to be two things that are called introduction. There is the title page which includes introductory remarks, including the "if there be fault" part, and there is the section labeled "Introduction".

The former has always been a part of the Book; the latter, as I understand things, was something the Church added much later. Perhaps we should refer to the former as the title page.

Good point. Yes, I agree, the "introduction" isn't as old as the "title page" which has the fault disclaimer.

To further complicate matters, in the 1830 edition there was a "Preface," viewable at the link below, which is mostly in reference to the lost 116 pages:

http://www.inephi.com/3.htm

 

[Foster Zygote]

Of course, the critics' rejoinder will be that the articles are biased, originating as they do from an LDS institution.* Apparently, then, the critics are free to use any source they desire to savage the Book of Mormon, but they do not grant the same liberty to Mormons themselves. How very fascinating.

And, apparently, no one can point out any of the clear errors contained within the BoM without this being characterized as "savaging" the book. That is a form of the "poisoning the well" fallacy. The articles are biased. They are produced by an apologist institution for the LDS. If someone is testifying on his own behalf against accusations leveled at him in a court of law, how could his testimony not be regarded as biased, whether it is true or not?

What really matters is the evidence. Why is it that the whole of the scientific community studying human genetics has reached a conclusion that differs from that of the studies published by the Maxwell Institute? Are you now going to characterize the vast majority of the human genetics community as being anti-Mormons bent on "savagely" discrediting the BoM? We aren't talking about about minor inconsistencies or simple errors in language mechanics. The rather grand claims that Joseph Smith wrote in the BoM have absolutely no supporting evidence. There is zero evidence of the civilization described. There is nothing in archaeology, anthropology or hereditary surveys to confirm the claim.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Thanks Pup & jsfisher.

 

[jsfisher]

How you do that?

Edited to add: I tried extra spaces, and tabs, and couldn't find a "right align" format button, so gave up.

In the "Reply to Thread" block, right after the B I U and before the numbered list icons are the three alignment choices, left, center, and right.

 

[sackett]

A new logical fallacy? Well big deal!

Argumentum ad punctuum. Nice.

So? Listen, all you jack- and flat-out anti-Mormons: WITH GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE!



Well, okay, maybe God needs some help from Skyrider now and then, but that doesn't obviate the principle.

And Joseph Smith could kick your ass, boxing, wrassling, or rough-and-tumble. Let's see YOUR profit, excuse me, prophet do that.

 

[RandFan]

Somebody who isn't a lazy ass like myself ought to document all of the questions not answered. For instance, as I noted earlier, why didn't god tell his prophet that Mark Hoffman was a con-artist and that meeting in secret to purchase forged documents to save the church embarrassment was counter to truth and transparency?

God could have saved the lives of 2 innocent people and the Church's credibility but he chose to remain silent, why?

And why oh why would the church think that an omnipotent and omniscient god would care about embarrassment?

 

[Pup]

You can find a huge amount of information about errors or changes to the Book of Mormon at this site. Apparently there are thousands of modern corrections addressing misspelled words, poor grammar, and regionalisms. It's likely to be considered an anti-Mormon site, but it appears to be largely just factual stuff.

One claim I found interesting concerns the possible origin of the name "Moroni". (Arabic: موروني ) This is a better map than the one depicted in the article. If you copy and paste the Arabic into the Google translator, and have it pronounced, it is eerily similar in pronunciation to the English.

I'd never heard about the Comoros/Cumorah Moroni connection. Pretty interesting, but I'm not sure I fully understand.

Is the author suggesting that the hill Cumorah in New York was always named that, but when Joseph Smith happened to use it as a sacred site, he (consciously or subconsciously) remembered another place with a similar name, with the word Moroni associated with it, and therefore used Moroni in a story about the local hill?

Or is the author suggesting that Joseph Smith made up both the names Cumorah and Moroni, based on a remembrance of an African map where they were connected, and the hill in New York was not called that before he gave it that name? (I don't know when or who named the hill--so that's another question.)

One thing I'm curious about is that the name Moroni itself doesn't seem to appear on the 1808 map at the link. I see "Comora" just below the lattitude line, and Mohilla just below that. But where is "Moroni"?

Looking on my own, I'm having trouble finding "Moroni" associated with "Comora" in period geographies or maps that Joseph Smith might have seen, but the potential variations in spelling makes it difficult to search, of course. Few of the standard schoolbook geographies even take it down as far as Comora, and only mention Mozambique. If even the map on the web page doesn't actually show the word Moroni, where did Smith see it?

For example, here's a fairly detailed 1803 German map, probably not available in upstate New York, but when one zooms in, there's the "Comoro Inseln," identified as Comoro, Anjouan, Mayota, Moeti, Johann, etc., but Moroni is not marked. And I'm having the same lack of luck, seeing the two names together, in period gazetteers, even fairly detailed ones.

It seems one heck of a coincidence that the two names would be associated in Africa, but on the other hand, it also seems strange that Smith would happen to see the names and remember them when they weren't widely printed in US geographies/maps, but it might be a very interesting clue to the title of some obscure geography book or map he happened to see. If we could identify it, there might be more things in there that helped him, consciously or subconsciously, choose names.

In the "Reply to Thread" block, right after the B I U and before the numbered list icons are the three alignment choices, left, center, and right.

Aha! I was using "quick reply" where the alignment choices are not visible, and I cannot read a sealed book.

 

[Olowkow]

I'd never heard about the Comoros/Cumorah Moroni connection. Pretty interesting, but I'm not sure I fully understand.

Is the author suggesting that the hill Cumorah in New York was always named that, but when Joseph Smith happened to use it as a sacred site, he (consciously or subconsciously) remembered another place with a similar name, with the word Moroni associated with it, and therefore used Moroni in a story about the local hill?

Or is the author suggesting that Joseph Smith made up both the names Cumorah and Moroni, based on a remembrance of an African map where they were connected, and the hill in New York was not called that before he gave it that name? (I don't know when or who named the hill--so that's another question.)

One thing I'm curious about is that the name Moroni itself doesn't seem to appear on the 1808 map at the link. I see "Comora" just below the lattitude line, and Mohilla just below that. But where is "Moroni"?
Looking on my own, I'm having trouble finding "Moroni" associated with "Comora" in period geographies or maps that Joseph Smith might have seen, but the potential variations in spelling makes it difficult to search, of course. Few of the standard schoolbook geographies even take it down as far as Comora, and only mention Mozambique. If even the map on the web page doesn't actually show the word Moroni, where did Smith see it?

For example, here's a fairly detailed 1803 German map, probably not available in upstate New York, but when one zooms in, there's the "Comoro Inseln," identified as Comoro, Anjouan, Mayota, Moeti, Johann, etc., but Moroni is not marked. And I'm having the same lack of luck, seeing the two names together, in period gazetteers, even fairly detailed ones.

It seems one heck of a coincidence that the two names would be associated in Africa, but on the other hand, it also seems strange that Smith would happen to see the names and remember them when they weren't widely printed in US geographies/maps, but it might be a very interesting clue to the title of some obscure geography book or map he happened to see. If we could identify it, there might be more things in there that helped him, consciously or subconsciously, choose names.



Aha! I was using "quick reply" where the alignment choices are not visible, and I cannot read a sealed book.

I couldn't figure out what his point was either, and could not find Moroni on his map, so I included a recent map. I merely found it odd connection, as I always wondered where JS came up with the word "Moroni".

 

[abaddon]

Fascinating stuff, Pup. Thank you.




You like this?

I couldn't figure out what his point was either, and could not find Moroni on his map, so I included a recent map. I merely found it odd connection, as I always wondered where JS came up with the word "Moroni".

It's a multiple of "moron".