Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[DeepShadow]

As far as anybody is concerned with a rational mind, that indeed is the case. Well , when I'm home seeing that DS doesn't mind, I'll repost the Tanner article, if I can find it again lol.

Melissa G

Please do. Also, if you don't mind, please stop implying that I (and many other posters on this board) don't have a rational mind.

 

[Melissa G]

I don't mind Well, let's say you have rational minds, but hold irrational beliefs. I think that seems reasonable.

melissa g

 

[SoyLeche]

I don't mind Well, let's say you have rational minds, but hold beliefs that I find irrational. I think that seems reasonable.

melissa g

I fixed your post. I find my beliefs to be perfectly rational. The problem isn't with the different premises that the two of us start with.

Your beliefs are just as irational to me as mine are to you.

 

[Melissa G]

Well, I'm ok with that. Actually I haven't been able to find the Tanner article as yet. But this seems quite a good critique of Chiasmus in the BOM. Especially intersting are mistranslations found in the KJV, which are repeated in the BOM. Source of the article is listed underneath. It is not my work of course. Due to the number of words, I've had to abridge, this all sections though can be accessed in the indexs. See especially Church and Synagogue, terms unknown at the supposed time of the Nephites

Linguistics and the Book of Mormon


Critics point out places where the language seems to be anachronistic, a common sign of a fictional work.
Contents [showhide] 1 Chiasmus

2 Stylometry

3 Proper Names

4 Possible Anachronisms

4.1 Word Choice in Translation

4.1.1 "Christ" and "Messiah"
4.1.2 "Church" and "Synagogue"


4.2 The King James Bible

4.2.1 Anachronistic Borrowings
4.2.2 Unique Words and Phrases
4.2.3 Mistranslations



5 Importance to Latter-day Saints

6 See also

Chiasmus

Relatively recently, a poetical form was found to be common in ancient Middle Eastern poetry, as well as in some parts of the Bible. Dubbed "chiasmus", it is a form of parallelism wherein key ideas familiar to the reader are inverted, usually to make a point (see entry on chiasmus for examples). It seems unlikely that this form of poetry was recognized in the 1800s, although instances of the rhetorical style have been found in writings from this period. In the 1960s, an LDS scholar, John Welch, discovered many uses of chiasm in the Book of Mormon. (See Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon for several examples.) The most commonly cited example is the prophet Alma's religious experience, as recorded in Alma 36.
Writings in the form of Chiasmus are also found in other documents authored by Joseph Smith, lending further credibility to Joseph Smith as the sole author of the Book of Mormon. This includes the Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price , and Joseph's own diary. This pattern is rather obvious and is most likely present due to the Bible being used to instruct individuals in how to write. With the Bible as the primary literary source in Joseph Smiths lifetime it is almost a given that certain structures of writing would carry over into Joe's constructs.

• Chiasmus in other LDS scripture:
  • D&C: 88:34-38
  • D&C: 93:18-38
  • D&C: 132:19-26
  • D&C: 29-36
  • PoGP, BoA: 3:16-19
  • PoGP, BoA: 22-28

Richard C. Shipp has produced a masters thesis out of BYU titled "Conceptual Patterns of Repetition in the Doctrine and Covenants and Their Implications". This thesis shows evidence that Smith had both the rhythm of Chiasmus and similar literary patterns throughout his writings.
Chiastic patterns have also been found in the Book of the Law of the Lord, a purported translation of an ancient text by James J. Strang, who is considered by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) to be the true successor to Joseph Smith. This book is not considered authentic by members of the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Critics point out that the presence of chiasmus in Strang's writing as well as the literature of other cultures implies that the source could be non-Hebrew. Additionally, they claim that the process of translation would make identifying chiasmus from the original Reformed Egymption difficult. See Ancient Chiasmus Studied (scroll to p 147) or Chiasmus and the Book of Mormon


Proper Names

The Book of Mormon contains over 300 proper names, which some consider a strong evidence that the book could not have been written in the 19th century. Some of these names are found in the Bible and the Apocrypha (e.g. Nephi: II Maccabbees 1:36; Lehi: Judges 15:9; Lemuel: Proverbs 31:1; Ammon: Genesis 19:38; Enos: Genesis 4:26; and many others). A few of the names are similar to place names around New York, where the Book of Mormon was first published (e.g. Lehi, Onidah, Morianton, Jacobugath, Alma, Shilom, Kishkumen, Moron, Shurr, Ogath, and Ramah).
Many non-biblical names found in the Book of Mormon resemble words from ancient Hebrew (e.g. Alma, Sariah, Aha, Ammonihah, Chemish, Hagoth, Himni, Isabel, Jarom, Josh, Luram, Mathoni, Mathonihah, and Muloki). Others, however, are Greek names, which seems to suggest a modern origin (e.g. Antipas, Archeantus, Ezias, Jonas, Judea, Timothy, and Zenos).
While the similarities to biblical, geographical, and Greek names do not seem to be strong enough to present strong evidence against the validity of the Book of Mormon, neither do the similarities to Hebrew names provide us with evidence for the book's claims.


The King James Bible

The Book of Mormon contains many linguistic similarities to the King James Bible. In some cases, entire passages of scripture are duplicated in the Book of Mormon. Sometimes the source is acknowledged, as in the book of 2 Nephi, where 18 chapters of Isaiah are quoted. The English text is copied nearly verbatim from the Authorized Version, with minor changes in the majority of verses. In other cases, the source is not acknowledged, especially in the case of seemingly anachronistic borrowings.

• Book of Mormon
• Reformed Egyptian
• Linguistics

Categories: Book of Mormon studies


Source: The Ultimate Linguistics and the book of Mormon - American History Information Guide and Reference

Melissa G

 

[Katzpur]

Yes, I do believe the Bible to be inspired by God and base my spiritual beliefs on it... I have also seen the power of God in my life and the life of others to know He's real... But, I don't consider it to be as a 100% accurate history or science book either... The problem I see with the BoM is that there is nothing in it that can be Archeologically or Geologically verified anywhere in the Americas... If the Bible had the same problems, I wouldn't find fault in anyone for not believing it...

I guess I'm not clear as to exactly what you would consider to be verifiable evidence -- maybe an ancient road sign saying, "Zarahemla 5 km."? The Book of Mormon will probably NEVER be archeologically or geologically proven to be true, but I am convinced that it will never be archeologically or geologically proven to be false, either. The list of "unverifiable items" is growing shorter every few years and many of the items that archeologists used to be absolutely certain did not exist in the America prior to the Spanish conquest have now been determined to have been here long before any Europeans arrived. In my opinion, the linguistic evidence for the Book of Mormon is much more compelling than the archeological evidence.

Katzpur, can you tell me why anyone should consider Joseph Smith's revelations as truely from God over those of Fatima, Lourdes, or even Conyers,GA..

I've actually never made any comment concerning revelations to individuals other than Joseph Smith, and we Latter-day Saints certainly don't believe that we're the only individuals privvy to inspiration and direction from God. Several of our leaders have made statements to this effect over the years. Here is one from B. H. Roberts, a former Apostle:

“While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is established for the instruction of men, it is ONE of God’s instrumentalities for making known the truth; yet God is not limited to that institution for such purposes, neither in time nor place. He raises up wise men and prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can comprehend...giving that measure of truth that the people are prepared to receive. Mormonism holds, then, that all the great teachers are servants of God among all nations and in all ages. They are inspired men, appointed to instruct God’s children according to the conditions in the midst of which he finds them… Whenever God finds a soul sufficiently enlightened and pure; one with whom His Spirit can communicate, lo! He makes of him a teacher of men.”

Anyway, I do consider LDS to be brothers and sisters in Christ...

Thank you! That's very nice to hear. The feeling, I hope you know, is mutual.

 

[groovyable]

To me Joesph Smirth, was a confused man who couldnt decide between the catholic church and the protestant church, therefore he got up set in the woods and decided to create his own church.. he went back home read some shakespeare and his bible and decided to blend them both together whilst adding the odd story of Jesus in America with the native indians and some mason ideas. Come on mormons how can you believe that Joe was a prophet he translated the BoM in his hat useing stones, and then his misses took away the documents and told him to do it again... yet the orgional translation was different from the second.

Joesph Smirth was successful in building his own church to a certain degree. Grated the missionarys are nice people and do no harm because they are spreading the message of christ to a certern context..therefore yes to a degree he did produce good fruit... yet he also created bad fruits aka raceism, dwelling in temples, keeping pagan doctines such as baptisism for the dead, sacered undergarments which is a mason idea, allowing members to have more than one marriage partner...

To me Joe is not a prophet... i believe he was fake, yet he was just trying to find the truth, which is not wrong...

Everytime i think about Joesph Smirth i always remember the south park episode i really think it sums up Joesph yet i will always repect the LDS Church, they will always be welcomed by me.

 

[SoyLeche]

To me Joesph Smirth, was a confused man who couldnt decide between the catholic church and the protestant church, therefore he got up set in the woods and decided to create his own church.. he went back home read some shakespeare and his bible and decided to blend them both together whilst adding the odd story of Jesus in America with the native indians and some mason ideas. Come on mormons how can you believe that Joe was a prophet he translated the BoM in his hat useing stones, and then his misses took away the documents and told him to do it again... yet the orgional translation was different from the second.

From what you've written here what is most obvious is that you know next to nothing about Joseph Smith. Go do some real research and come back.

 

[groovyable]

From what you've written here what is most obvious is that you know next to nothing about Joseph Smith. Go do some real research and come back.

why? i have done research, (including pro Mormom and anti Mormom- and my own independant research to make it a fair test.. wiki is great plus the offical Joesph Smith site, LDS.org, talkin to the members) just because you dont like my answer doesnt mean its not true, they say sometimes the truth hurts... yet like you say i will do some more research because this thread has intregreed me. (i say this will all respect x )

All the best

 

[SoyLeche]

why? i have done research, (including pro Mormom and anti Mormom- and my own independant research to make it a fair test.. wiki is great plus the offical Joesph Smith site, LDS.org, talkin to the members) just because you dont like my answer doesnt mean its not true, they say sometimes the truth hurts... yet like you say i will do some more research because this thread has intregreed me. (i say this will all respect x )

All the best

Because it appears that most of your research did, in fact, come from watching South Park. You are wrong in almost everything you said. I'm not even going to bother going point by point on your post. Every point you make is wrong.

You may know more than I think you do, but you didn't show any of it in your post. That's all.

 

[groovyable]

Because it appears that most of your research did, in fact, come from watching South Park. You are wrong in almost everything you said. I'm not even going to bother going point by point on your post. Every point you make is wrong.

You may know more than I think you do, but you didn't show any of it in your post. That's all.

Well its obvious i'm wrong so why not correct me? Or you denineing that Joesph used a hat to translate the scriptures? That Jesus went to America? That black people were rejected by the LDS Church? That there are no simalarities from Shakespere and the BoM? By the way Wiki explains all of this, not south park ooh and the offical Joesph Smith website.

Please correct me...

All the best x

 

[SoyLeche]

Well its obvious i'm wrong so why not correct me? Or you denineing that Joesph used a hat to translate the scriptures? That Jesus went to America? That black people were rejected by the LDS Church? That there are no simalarities from Shakespere and the BoM?

Because I don't bother responding to people who are trolling for contention. Your post is so full of falsehoods that I have to conclude that you don't really care about what the truth is - especially since you've told me that you did more research than just watching South Park. If you have actually read anything of value, you didn't pick up anything from it. I'm guessing you ignored it.

The only thing in this post worth talking about is the time that both Shakesphere and Lehi quoted Job. Nothing all that interesting there.

 

[groovyable]

Because I don't bother responding to people who are trolling for contention. Your post is so full of falsehoods that I have to conclude that you don't really care about what the truth is - especially since you've told me that you did more research than just watching South Park. If you have actually read anything of value, you didn't pick up anything from it. I'm guessing you ignored it.

The only thing in this post worth talking about is the time that both Shakesphere and Lehi quoted Job. Nothing all that interesting there.

If i didn't care why would you think i would make posts on this? I don't care for the truth? well i am in the truth so i must care... but then again thats another discousion... My post is full of falsehoods, well i could say that yours are biass and full of falsehoods and that it twists the truth away from the Bible.

Whats the point in doing research if you are going to ignor it?? I didnt ignor anything in my research, i quite simply thought about it and wanted to no more, yet i thought it was false therefore i carried on researching and found the truth (the JW faith)

Perhaps you need to do some research (not the biass pro LDS) about Joesph Smith, try wiki or his offical site.

I find it quite sad that you do not want to share your good news to me and what you believe if you change your mind pm me

All the best xxx

 

[SoyLeche]

If i didn't care would you think i would make posts on this?

Plenty of people do. I don't know why I would assume you wouldn't.

I don't care for the truth? well i am in the truth so i must care... Put then again thats another discousion... My post is full of falsehoods, well i could say that yours are biass and full of falsehoods and that it twists the truth away from the Bible.

You could say that, but at least I'd try and get my facts right. We can differ in our interpretations of facts all day long, for all I care - just get the actual facts into the discussion.

Whats the point in doing research if you are going to ignor it?? I didnt ignor anything in my research, i quite simply thought about it and wanted to no more, yet i thought it was false therefore i carried on researching and found the truth (the JW faith)

You must have ignored a whole lot if this is all you got out of it.

Perhaps you need to do some research about Joesph Smith, try wiki, his offical site.

All the best xxx

I guarantee that I have done more research into the life of Joseph Smith than you have. And from real sources (wiki isn't a real source, BTW).

 

[groovyable]

Plenty of people do. I don't know why I would assume you wouldn't.

You could say that, but at least I'd try and get my facts right. We can differ in our interpretations of facts all day long, for all I care - just get the actual facts into the discussion.

You must have ignored a whole lot if this is all you got out of it.

I guarantee that I have done more research into the life of Joseph Smith than you have. And from real sources (wiki isn't a real source, BTW).

Wiki isnt a real souce? how dare you say that haha! well what is it then? an online encyclopedia ? sooo isn't the offical Joseph Smith website a real source??? You props have dedicated your life to Joesph Smith, im happy for you and i wish all the best with your faith, all that im botherd about is getting to the truth and seen as though this thread is about the truth and i disprove that joe was a prophet and you just disregard what i say and refuse to back the beliefs of the LDS Church speaks louder than words.

2 corinthians 11:14

 

[SoyLeche]

Wiki isnt a real souce? how dare you say that haha! well what is it then? an online encyclopedia ? sooo isn't the offical Joseph Smith website a real source??? You props have dedicated your life to Joesph Smith, im happy for you and i wish all the best with your faith, all that im botherd about is getting to the truth and seen as though this thread is about the truth and i disprove that joe was a prophet and you just disregard what i say and refuse to back the beliefs of the LDS Church speaks louder than words.

Try books - by authors that actually might know a little bit about what they are talking about - and using primary sources instead of bits and pieces of quotes using lots of elipses.

The official website is all right, but probably not the best source. It certainly isn't unbiassed (although it's tough to find unbiassed sources on Joseph Smith).

You have come about as close to disproving that he was a prophet as I have come to throwing a baseball fast enough to put it in orbit. If you get to make up your facts you can 'disprove' just about anything. Taking facts out of their context is just about as bad.

Here's your homework. Take the first paragraph of your first post here, study what you said, go so some research and figure out what you got wrong. Once you can explain to me what is wrong in that paragraph (there is plenty), then I might consider having an actual conversation with you on the subject.

 

[groovyable]

Here's your homework. Take the first paragraph of your first post here, study what you said, go so some research and figure out what you got wrong. Once you can explain to me what is wrong in that paragraph (there is plenty), then I might consider having an actual conversation with you on the subject.

Heres your homework, read 2 corinthians 11:14 and work out how it relates to Joesph Smith and then i'l hand in my homework.

 

[SoyLeche]

Heres your homework, read 2 corinthians 11:14 and work out how it relates to Joesph Smith and then i'l hand in my homework.

Deal. Of course, your homework is for you to get your facts right. Mine is just to explain an interpretation of scripture. I've got the easier part.

It relates to Joseph Smith in that he gave a method to help distinguish between an actual angel and an impostor. Other than that, not so much. (BTW - I don't believe a word of what Joseph Smith said merely because he said it).

 

[groovyable]

Deal. Of course, your homework is for you to get your facts right. Mine is just to explain an interpretation of scripture. I've got the easier part.

It relates to Joseph Smith in that he gave a method to help distinguish between an actual angel and an impostor. Other than that, not so much. (BTW - I don't believe a word of what Joseph Smith said merely because he said it).

Fairymuff

ok im off now anways SoyLeche, believe or not yet ive enjoyed this, i hope that you keep well... you have lit an old flame (intrest in Joesph Smith)

I'l pm you in the very near future with what i have learnt xxxx

 

[SoyLeche]

Fairymuff

ok im off now anways SoyLeche, believe or not yet ive enjoyed this, i hope that you keep well... you have lit an old flame (intrest in Joesph Smith)

I'l pm you in the very near future with what i have learnt xxxx

You posted the false facts in public - I think it is only fair that you post your correction in public as well.

 

[Katzpur]

Groovyable,

To me Joesph Smirth, was a confused man who couldnt decide between the catholic church and the protestant church, therefore he got up set in the woods and decided to create his own church..

Very interesting perspective. As far as I know, Joseph Smith never even considered Catholicism. How did he get "set up in the woods"? I'm afraid you're statement doesn't make a lot of sense.

he went back home read some shakespeare and his bible and decided to blend them both together whilst adding the odd story of Jesus in America with the native indians and some mason ideas.

I have three questions for you already.

(1) It would have been highly unlikely that the Smith family had access to the works of Shakespeare. The Bible was likely the only book in their home. I'm not sure why you figure that Shakespeare figures in here. (Actually, I do, but I'd like to hear your explanation.) On the other hand, I'm sure you're right that he read the Bible. It was actually what he read in James 1:5 that prompted him to ask God for wisdom in the first place.

(2) What exactly do you find odd about the possibility of the resurrected Christ visiting the inhabitants of the ancient American continent? Do Jehovah's Witnesses teach that His message was only for the inhabitants of the Old World or that there was some reason why He didn't want it to be shared with God's children here until after the Spanish conquest?

(3) What Masonic teachings do you believe are found in the Book of Mormon. If you wouldn't mind quoting chapter and verse, I would appreciate it.

Come on mormons how can you believe that Joe was a prophet.

It's not that hard, really. We believe what we do for pretty much the same reason you believe what you do -- faith in the Lord and a belief that He answers our prayers and guides us to the truth.

His misses took away the documents and told him to do it again... yet the orgional translation was different from the second.

Really? Now that's a new one on me. Would you mind quoting your source on that, because as far as I'm aware, Emma was completely supportive of Joseph, and he never translated any portion of the plates a second time.

He also created bad fruits aka raceism, dwelling in temples, keeping pagan doctines such as baptisism for the dead, sacered undergarments which is a mason idea, allowing members to have more than one marriage partner...

Again, several questions for you...

(1) How did Joseph Smith promote racism?
(2) Who dwells in temples? Certainly no one I've ever heard of.
(3) What leads you to believe that proxy baptism is a pagan practice? I wasn't aware that pagans baptize at all.
(4) Do you have friends who are Masons? Have you ever seen their underwear? I'd really like to hear more about this.
(5) Are you as critical of Abraham as you are of Joseph Smith, or are you unaware that he also had multiple wives, and was highly favored by God?

Everytime i think about Joesph Smirth i always remember the south park episode i really think it sums up

You do? So would Southpark be your primary source of information on most religions other than your own? I don't watch it myself, but I imagine they would have a regular heyday poking fun at the Jehovah's Witnesses.

i will always repect the LDS Church.

That's certainly nice to know, because I somehow missed that in your post. I can't even begin to imagine what you would have had to say if you didn't respect us!