“The possibility of finding buried treasure fascinated many in late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century America. Reports of searching for such riches were widespread in the Palmyra [New York] area, and extant accounts show that treasure was generally sought through supernatural means. Locations for buried wealth and lost Spanish mines were sometimes located through dreams. Treasures could also be located by using divining rods, often made from ‘witch hazel,’ or by looking in special stones or crystals. Sometimes when a stone was used, a person would place the stone in a hat and then conjure the guardian treasure spirit. After finding a spot where the cache was supposedly hidden, the seekers would draw a magic circle on the ground around the hidden treasure. Sometimes they would maintain absolute silence, but other times they would recite magical charms or religious verses used as charms. Whatever the means, money-diggers needed to overcome the guardian spirit who had enchanted the treasure, otherwise the treasure would slip back into the earth.” (H. Michael Marquardt & Wesley P. Walters, Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record, page 63)
This is the trouble had by Joseph Smith in 1826. A money-digger by occupation and reputation, Joseph got into trouble when the treasure he had been hired to find continually eluded the treasure hunters. Here’s what happened.
Josiah Stowell was a well-to-do farmer in Bainbridge, New York. Believing Spaniards had once hidden a mine in northern Pennsylvania, Mr. Stowell decided to try to find it. Because of the Smith family’s reputation for having the ability to locate buried treasure, Mr. Stowell sought their help late in 1825. According to Mr. Stowell’s testimony, while still in New York, Joseph looked into his peep stone and said he could see the treasure Mr. Stowell was looking for; it could be found in Harmony, Pennsylvania. Therefore, Mr. Stowell hired 19-year-old Joseph to find the buried treasure.
After several months of unsuccessful digging, Mr. Stowell’s nephew, Peter Bridgman, became concerned that his uncle was being swindled. Peter brought a formal charge against Joseph Smith, resulting in Joseph’s arrest. As part of his own defense, Joseph made a statement, which said:
“Prisoner examined: says…That he had a certain stone which he occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold mines were a distance underground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel[l] several times,… That at Palmyra he pretended to tell by looking at this stone where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania, and while at Palmyra had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was of various kinds; that he had occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of late had pretty much given it up on account of its injuring his health, especially his eyes, made them sore;…” (Inventing Mormonism, page 72)
Court records from Chenango County, New York show that Joseph Smith appeared before Justice Albert Neely for examination (a pre-trial hearing) on March 20th, 1826. After hearing testimony by witnesses and the defendant himself, according to Marquardt and Walters,
“the court concluded that there was enough evidence to indicate that the prisoner, Joseph Smith the Glass Looker, had claimed to have the skill to discover lost goods, a misdemeanor under the Vagrant Act, and had not actually found anything. Neely wrote in his court record, ‘And therefore the Court find the defendant [Joseph Smith] guilty.'” (page 74)
No further action appears to have been taken. Joseph was not sentenced to any penalty. There is some evidence to suggest that, due to Joseph’s young age, the court decided not to pursue the case any further.
The following year, 1827, Joseph claimed he found gold plates in the earth. According to his story, he brought the plates home and translated the text engraved on them into what would become the Book of Mormon. Early in the history of the LDS Church Mormons understood that Joseph located the gold plates by gazing into his seer stone, and used the stone in the Book of Mormon “translation” process (Inventing Mormonism, page 75).
To recap: Joseph Smith, the Prophet of the Restoration, admitted to using a peep stone to find buried treasure and other lost items. He confessed that he sometimes pretended to see treasure while looking at his stone. He was known and sought after as a money-digger/glass-looker. It was in this context that Joseph Smith announced he had found ancient plates of gold buried in the earth which contained the very words of God.
Ten years ago, then LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley was puzzled. He said, “I can’t understand why those of other faiths cannot accept the Book of Mormon.” Perhaps Joseph Smith’s reputation as a glass-looking money-digger could be understood as one reason non-Mormons question the authenticity of the book Joseph and his seer stone produced.
JS and Emma Hale eloped because of her father’s disapproval of JS money-digging. After being married for several months they finally went to see Isaac Hale where JS promised to end his treasure seeking ways. One month later, he claimed to have found the plates…
http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/01-EmmaHale.htm
I spoke recently to a young LDS woman on a 4 hour flight from DC. She was open to (or at least, outwardly kind about) just about everything I told her about Mormonism. But when I brought up this very topic about “Joseph the Glass Looker” she denied it vehemently, stated unequivocally that he never did any such thing, and that the found records and historical reporting of it were just plain lies. I wonder why this one is such a tough nugget for them. I’ve had LDS deny Jesus Christ before they would deny Joseph Smith (“There is no evidence that Jesus Christ existed or rose from the dead…”). Sharon, thanks for this truthful reporting of factual information. I hope the LDS will use it as a springboard for research into the facts about their “Inventor.”
The evidence that the Mormon Church had denied came to light in 1971. Prior to that, in response to the rumors of JS activiities, Mormon scholar Francis W. Kirkham stated that if the court record could be found, it would show that the Mormon church was false. He said, “If any evidence had been in existence that JS had used a seer stone for fraud and deception, and especially had he made this confession in a court of law as early as 1826, or four years before the BoM was printed, and this confession was in a court record, it would have been impossible for him to have organized the restored church.”
The court records were discovered in the basement of the Chenango Co., New York, jailhouse at Norwich, N.Y in 1971. The rtecords, affidavits, and other data show conclusively that JS was arrested, went to trial, was found guilty as an imposter in the Stowell matter of “glass-looking.” This is not opinion or debate but a proven historical fact.
So what happened to Mormon denials that JS was a money digger and that if he was that would disqualify him as a prophet? In typical Mormon fashion they have resorted to a “so what” attitude. It doesn’t really matter. He can be both a peek stone looking treasure hunter and a prophet. Does it ever cross our TBM friends minds that the guy was a con man….period. The evidence on the con man side of the ledger is way heavier than that on the prophet side.
Another chink in the armor.
Of course, its a lie, though, so no, it doesn’t matter.
The LDS apologetic response is that treasure-seeking was the norm in that day. I have yet to look into it, but I can imagine that (to borrow from Hinckley) there is some substance to what they say. I believe it would stand to reason that Joseph Smith was a product of his environment. He was poor, his family was poor, and he got caught up in the adventure of finding buried treasure. His family probably wouldn’t have ever been well known if it wasn’t for their money-digging background, so I bet he got some sort of excitement from the fame it offered.
I have the book Rough Stone Rolling which I haven’t gotten into yet, but I hear it has some information on this aspect of his past.
So what does this have to say about his character? It doesn’t give him any credence, thats for sure. Ironic how one of the temple recommend questions is if your “honest in dealings with your fellow men”, yet JS himself slipped up on that one. Granted, he lied, and thats a sin, so the issue is not him sinning, because everyone does. It is circumstantial, incriminating evidence that the BoM is just another one of his schemes. Especially since the same tool used to swindle people out of their money, is used in the same fashion to translate the golden plates.
I know the prophets of old weren’t without sin, so I can’t say that just because Joseph Smith was found as liar means he’s not a prophet of God, but this is definitely something people should consider. It is painful to read negative stuff about someone you are devoted to, but if it is in fact true, would you not want to at least know?
The proper context to examine the BoM should be the CONTENTS of the book, not the means he used to deliver it. Would you feel inclined to ridicule the speaker at a business conference, because he arrived in a beat up car? Or rode an old bicycle? That would be ridiculous and superficial. (like the content of this article). We should instead examine the content of his presentation.
Some of these observations I think will be of interest to you, as they were to me, for they clarify some of the unique aspects of the book.
Jarom 2: “It musts needs be…” This expression, odd and awkward in English, is excellent Arabic grammar. Elsewhere in the book the use of the compound verbs “did eat”, “did go”, “did smile” again awkward and rarely used in English, are classical and correct grammar in the Semitic languages.
Omni 18: “Zarahemla gave a genealogy of his fathers, according to his memory. Brother Hanna indicates that this is a typical custom of his Semitic forebearers to recite their genealogy from memory.
Words of Mormon 17: Reference is made here as in other parts of the Book of Mormon, to the “stiffneckedness ” of his people. Brother Hanna perceives that this word would be a very unusual word for an American youth, Joseph Smith, to use. An American would likely prefer an adjective such as stubborn or inflexible. But the custom in the Arabic language is to use just such a descriptive adjective. Stiffnecked is an adjective they use in describing an obstinate person.
Mosiah 11:8 “King Noah built many elegant and spacious buildings and ornamented them with fine work and precious things, including ziff.” Have you ever wondered about the meaning of the word ” ziff” referred to in this scripture? This word, although in the Book of Mormon, is not contained in dictionaries of the English language. Yet it translates freely back into the Arabic language, for ziff is a special kind of curved sword somewhat like a scimitar which is carried in a sheath and often used for ornamentation as well as for more practical purposes. The discovery of the word ” ziff” in the Book of Mormon really excited my neighbor, Brother Hanna.
Actually the means of delivery is important. If a message comes by means of the occult, is it from God? When we have someone like Joseph Smith, who was deep into the occult and the magic arts, the source of his “power” is not God. Then when he degrades the Bible, claims that God is a glorified man, that men can become gods and introduces temple rituals by the means of which, people claim to see the spirits of dead people, this is not of God. Joseph Smith and his cronies claimed “second sight” visions. This is not of God. It is easy to see what the source of Mormonism is. Satan doesn’t care if it’s all wraped-up in a pretty “moral” package. All the better to seduce people.
GRC, if you’re going to quote other people, you should give the source instead of pretending the words are your own. At least falcon paraphrased Hartshorn instead of copying and pasting. And you’ve made an excellent point as to why we discuss “context” -Mormons repeatedly give out of context analogies (such as a speaker’s mode of transportation) to avoid the real issue. I, for one, think the events leading up to the supposed discovery and ‘translation’ of the BoM is of interest and importance.
GRC, the context is vital because of the claims of Smith and because of the dubious at best nature of the “witnesses”. Smith lived in a day of mysticism and the story he wove in the BoM is a product of those times. Despite mormon efforts to sanitize and rearrange the details of the origins to sound less far fetched, the reality of the end product (which I have read cover to cover) is that it is a reflection of the era Smith wrote it.
A more apt analogy of JS would be “the speaker showed up in a beat up car, and his topic was ‘I am an authority on body repair.'”
I was attempting to quote a paragraph about a Arabic scholar named Hanna, but only the first and last section posted. The middle section would have given my quote better context. Sorry for the confusion.
Regardless, why does no one address the content issue I bring up? How is it that JS used so many Arabic phrases and words? Something must have been visible in his clear stone.
Cluff, because it is a distraction.
I also may be mistaken, but to my understanding there was actually information available to him as a book or two was written shortly before this time period that would have outlined a lot of this stuff. It is very possible, then, that he read the stuff and was able to incorporate it in his story.
If I am wrong, forgive me, it is late and I am too tired to look it up…
GRC: ditch the idea of JS being some kind of ignorant plough boy, he was anything but. J. Bushman does a good job of dispelling that myth, JS lived within miles of a pretty good library and it seems pretty certain that he liked to read, as did his mom. There were also itinerent speakers and preachers, and the preachers sometimes worked in bits and pieces from other cultures as a way of keeping people interested (hence the word “adieu” showing up in th BoM later). JS had access to all this, and his was a clever and quick mind. He didn’t have to “create”, he only had to listen and borrow, and forget to give attribution, or more correctly, give an attribution to God that was really something else. If he translated from REFORMED EGYPTIAN, why the big deal about the ARABIC items?? PS: I like your ‘business speaker illustration’, but the question lingers, “what business was JS in……?” GERMIT
germit, great point on his imagination and langauge. I have a pretty vivid imagination and honestly I could have written a book similar to the BoM, and used King Jamesy language to make it sound like scripture. Keeping in mind all of the grammatical and other errors that the mormon church has cleaned up so it sounds less like the writings of a poorly educated farm boy.
GRC sez: “Regardless, why does no one address the content issue I bring up? How is it that JS used so many Arabic phrases and words? Something must have been visible in his clear stone.”
So we have a bunch of Hebrews, writing in “Reformed Egyptian” using “Arabic” phrases. Quite the multilinguists these people were, especially since so much of it was written by people who allegendly never lived in the mideast. That would be like me writing in Reformed Polish even though my native tongue is English and alledgedly using Chinese phrases.
You can drink lots of forbidden ice tea with all the straws you are grasping at!
Arthur: Thanks for the shout out, I’ll try and not get “the big head” as they say down south. I would describe JS as “self educated” not “poorly educated” and there is a difference. Having a sporadic PUBLIC education meant that his grammar took it on th chin (nothing that a little LDS editing,well OK, A LOT of church editing can’t fix), but otherwise, he was ‘home schooled’ and really seems to have fared rather well, he certainly did not lack in initiative, when the topics interested him (a la Hebrew history behind indian origins, a popular topic in that part of NY) Your ice tea quote had me rolling: glad I wasn’t drinking the forbidden juice of the bean. GERMIT
Cluff,
I sure hope that the prophet seeing things in the clear stone as an explanation was your attempt at humor. Just an aside, Joseph Smith’s favorite rock was chocolate brown in color. I appreciate your attempts to find some sort of “logical” explanation for Smith’s BoM. Look the dude was up to his eye balls in the occult. He and the guys he was hanging around with, while not totally illiterate, remind me of adolescent boys out on a treasure hunt. Go and rent a copy of the movie “Stand By Me”. I think it’s a good parallel to Joseph’s gang. Especially as the main character “Gordy”, has a real talent for creative story telling.
I keep wondering why, those of us nonMormons who post here, can see so clearly that Joseph Smith was a flim flam man? Maybe some of you exMos can enlighten me as to what kept you in the program until you made the break. Just a survey. How many of you knew the magic rock story before you became Mormons?
Falcon, I had never heard the magic rock story before I left, and if I had I would have assumed it was some sort of @nti-mormon propaganda. Really the message the missionaaries tell is so sanitized that you never hear this stuff, it is only slowly revealed. That is why the make people wait a year before going through the temple, so they can be indoctrinated. If people went through the temple right away after conversion, they would be so creeped out that they would leave in droves. “Wait, so you want to let some old dude dab me with olive oil while I am wearing nothing but a half sheet? My loins don’t need a blessing, I’m outta here!”
GRCluff,
Here is a good laugh from the BoM.
1 Nephi 16:18: And it came to pass that as I Nephi, went forth to slay food, behold, I did break my bow, which was made of fine steel.
How can you break a bow made of fine steel? You could take cheap steel and beat it over a rock or on something very hard and try as you might you will have a really hard time trying to break it. Also if you have a bow you will do all you can not to use it in such a way as to possibly break it in such a careless manor.
And you really believe that story?
What about this,
Enos 20: They ate raw meat.
Maybe well cleaned small amounts today under strict rules, but to kill and eat back then? I doubt it. Rick b
Helaman 1:3 Here reference is made to the contending for the judgment seat. He observes that the use of the term “judgment seat” would be quite strange to an American who might have used a more familiar noun such as governor, president, or ruler. Yet, in Arabic custom, the place of power rests in the judgment seat and whoever occupies that seat, is the authority and power. The authority goes with the seat and not with the office or the person. So, this, in the Semitic languages, connotes the meaning exactly.
Germit:
You are saying this level of cultural knowledge was available at the local library? Weak argument my friend, very weak.
As members, we are aware of the Semitic origin of the BoM. The fact that an Arabic scholar such as this sees a beautiful internal consistency in the translation of the is of great interest. JS did not merely render an interpretation, but a word for word translation from the Egyptian type of hieroglyphic into the English language. He (Hanna) said the BoM simply flowed back into the Arabic language.
Come on now, JS was not a linguist, did he really have that level of knowlege about ancient Semitic languages? The content over context argument holds water.
GRCluff,
Speaking of weak arguments…
“Helaman 1:3 Here reference is made to the contending for the judgment seat. He observes that the use of the term “judgment seat” would be quite strange to an American who might have used a more familiar noun such as governor, president, or ruler. Yet, in Arabic custom, the place of power rests in the judgment seat and whoever occupies that seat, is the authority and power. The authority goes with the seat and not with the office or the person. So, this, in the Semitic languages, connotes the meaning exactly.”
The phrase “judgment seat” appears 10 times in the New Testament in the KJV, which Smith of course had access to, so it is hardly a phrase he never would have hear of.
1 Nephi, when they fled to America occurs around 590 B.C. Helaman was allegedly written between 52 and 51 B.C. So over 500 years after they fled the middle east, a random quote that is easily attributed to the New Testament becomes your basis for proven that the BoM is of ancient origin because a text written in “Reformed Egyptian” supposedly contains an Arabic term.
Cluff,
You’re blowing way too much smoke here. We need some details on your “expert” in arabic languages so we can check him out. I could quote an arabic expert named Annah who says your arabic expert is a fraud. Would you accept that without some documentation?
What do we know? We know that Joseph Smith, a known practioner of magic arts and a convicted treasure hunter, put a magic rock in a hat, shoved his face in the hat, in order to “translate” some golden plates which he dug up from the ground. The book, by any evidential measure, is a total fraud. So now we are to believe that some expert in arabic, finds support for the vocabulary and idioms used in the book? What do we know about the credentials of this expert……zero. He will be joining the Mormon DNA experts at a conference in Provo any day now I’m sure.
More information please. The burden of proof is on you CLUFF. Arabic expert indeed…………….mutter, harumph, mutter, mutter, harumph……
GRC: you still don’t understand the claim I am making (and I’m sure I’m not alone in this claim). I’m not claiming that JS was a linguist or even that he wrote (entirely from wholecloth) the BoM. I’m saying he could borrow and plagiarize with the best of them. He’s like the dude that wrote an “autobiography” and got busted on Oprah. Too bad we didn’t have Oprah back in 1830. And yes, I am saying that all of the raw material of th BoM was available to JS. That’s a big claim I would base on the histories I’ve read from both mormon (Bushman,Vogel,Millet) and non-LDS sources (Abanes,Tanner,Ostling). He didn’t have to CREATE anything, and many of the major themes (treasure and/or old books that are buried, Jewish connection to indian origins,the rise and fall of ancient cultures and peoples, esp. warlike cultures) were all very prevalent in JS time BEFORE he ever had pen set to paper, or face pressed into Stetson. His genius was,in my opinion, that not only was he the penultimate borrower, HE KNEW HIS DEMOGRAPHIC: HE KNEW WHAT WOULD SELL. I don’t think he consciously thought about it, I think, for him this was pure God given instinct gone horribly wrong. This last part is as subjective as it gets, so I don’t expect anyone to have to agree or disagree, just an observation based on readeing. Your ‘flowed back into the aramaic from the egyptian’ thing is gibberish to me, I honestly do nOT get that. GERMIT
GRCluff says: Would you feel inclined to ridicule the speaker at a business conference, because he arrived in a beat up car? Or rode an old bicycle? That would be ridiculous and superficial. (like the content of this article). We should instead examine the content of his presentation.
If I was in a business conference and the man who rode the bike or came in the beat up car was trying to present to me ways that I could accumulate wealth beyond my wildest dreams and all I had to do was purchase his advice for say, $19.99. I would have to take a pass. For I could plainly see, his advice was not working for him.
Check out two authors, Ethan Smith and Josiah Priest who were well known at the time of Joseph Smith, and Ethan Smith, even visiting Palmyra on a book tour. Joseph copied from their books as well as some of the early documents of our country. He is what he is. If you want to honor him as a prophet, feel free to do so. That is the great thing about our country. But history is full of unrighteous, charismatic leaders that people have followed even into death. Theirs as well as others.
It is blasphemous that Joseph Smith could even think he could classify himself in the same category as Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith’s delusion of grandeur, is one reason I would not follow him. No matter what kind of bike he was riding :>
I found some better information on the quotes I listed above:
Sami Hanna has left the Church and has repudiated anything that he ever said about the BoM. This isn’t terribly important, though, since he wasn’t particularly well qualified to do a lingusitic analysis of the BoM in the first place. Here is a link to a review by John A.Tvedtnes available on the FARMS website confirming this. He is a scholar who IS qualified to write on Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon.
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php table=review&id=49
GRCluff, I give you credit for being tenacious. Normally by this point mormons retreat to the “I have a testimony” and “There is a spirit of confusion on this site” and disappear.
Not to be difficult, but Tvedtnes has a Masters in Linguistics and Middle East Studies. He probably knows about Hebrew and may even know some Hebrew but I am going to go on a limb and say that other, more credentialed scholars in Hebrew would not see the same connections esp. given how much Smith copied from the Bible verbatim.
Ultimately mormonism doesn’t, cannot, rest on the “evidence” of alleged obscure similarities. The only “proof” mormons can fall back on their testimony. Mormon missionaries don’t give out the BoM and ask people to explore the Hebraisms in it, or even to compare it to the Bible. They tell people to pray about it. If they pray and don’t get the right answer, they are told to pray some more. The mormon chuch has been very cautious about putting forth any “evidence” about the BoM, instead relying on their attack dogs at FARMS to do so. The validity of the BoM lives or dies with your testimony, and since that has been shown to be fallible, what are you basing your faith on? Alleged Hebraisms? Alleged masonic writings on the Dead Sea Scrolls? Put your faith in Christ alone. The Bible is sufficient for all you need to know to be saved. Turn away from your own self-reliance, your own worthiness and put your trust in His saving grace. That is the only way you can be saved.
GRCluff: Not much I can add to Arthurs words above except to repeat the obvious: with 20thousand plus words lifted directly from the bible, you think we might predict a few ‘hebraisms’?? Your zeal in defending what you think is true is commendable, but put what you (and FARMS) at arms length and take a good look at it. To even begin to think that JS was not who he said he was would turn your world literally upside down, and I don’t take that lightly, but others have done it, you’ve been blogging with several of them. Their ‘testimony’ is absolutely devoid of regret regarding that change, difficulties and all. THINK, and pray, about it. Blessings to you and ALL who post here. GERMIT
GRCluff said,
As members, we are aware of the Semitic origin of the BoM. The fact that an Arabic scholar such as this sees a beautiful internal consistency in the translation of the is of great interest. JS did not merely render an interpretation, but a word for word translation from the Egyptian type of hieroglyphic into the English language. He (Hanna) said the BoM simply flowed back into the Arabic language.
Correct me if I am not understanding you correctly here, but are you saying that the BoM was written in the Egyptian language before it was translated by JS. I mean while it was on the golden plates, or back when the BoM people wrote down their language. Rick b
Sorry CLUFF,
And I do sincerely mean it, because I know you’re casting about trying to find any evidence that might support the BoM as a historically accurate book. Simon Southerton, a real DNA expert and former Mormon, recently published a list of FARMS/FAIR “experts” and showed how laughably inept some of these people are. I should have saved it to see if your guy was on it. Perhaps if someone knows Simon, they could get the list. One of the scenes from the movie “Stand By Me” (which I recommended you watch) has two of the boys having a discussion about who would win if Mighty Mouse and Superman got into a fight. One boy chastises the other and says, “That’s easy. Mighty Mouse is just a cartoon character. Superman is a real guy.” That’s basically the kind of arguments I see put forth by Mormons to prove that Joseph Smith was a real prophet, the BoM is a historically accurate book and the Mormon Church is the real deal.
A lot of exMos figured out that their testimony wasn’t a real good test for the truth. And in fact had them beliving in the religious equivalent of a comic book.
Arthur:
Truth is truth, and the witness of the Holy Ghost is real, and quite evident in my church experience. The foundation that people use for truth is what changes. You know, the wise man and the sand story?
You are big on the physical and scholarly evidence theory, but that can be manipulated by men just as readily as the witness of the HG. Remember the salamander letter? A manipulation of scholarly evidence.
I can, however, observe that the language used by JS does follow Hebrew language structures, and the level of detail and nature of the language he uses is beyond the knowledge of linguistics that he could have had at that point in his life. I just need to be fexible enough to stand on the sand for a few minutes. 🙂
Truth is truth. Granted. The witness of the Holy Spirit is real. Amen! But do not forget that the Holy Spirit will bring all things to remembrance, all things that Jesus taught. Taught whom? In the context, the disciples. For three years they had received plain truth, but they failed to perceive it. Are we to believe that truth is divorced from empirical evidence? The witness of the Spirit is needed, not primarily because evidence can be manipulated, but because our sin darkened hearts are blinded to it. When Jesus was on this earth he gave so much empirical evidence that all the books could not contain it. The Holy Spirit does not supersede truth. He affirms it. The Mormon mantra to pray about the Book of Mormon is an appeal to receive verification without investigation, a principle totally alien to Scripture.
One more thought. It is seems as though what is being proposed is the following: “My evidence cancels out your evidence. Your evidence cancels out mine. So all we have in the end is “truth” because truth is truth. Hmmmm.
Grcluff,
Can you tell me if I was understanding you correctly or not. Not sure if you missed my question or simply ignored it. Rick b
GRCluff,
“Truth is truth, and the witness of the Holy Ghost is real, and quite evident in my church experience. The foundation that people use for truth is what changes. You know, the wise man and the sand story?”
Actually that is not true. For two thousand years God’s people have used the Bible, even when there was but a tiny remnant of His people when Rome controlled the church. That has not changed. We are called to search the Scriptures (which does not and did not include the BoM) to see if what we are hearing is true.
“Remember the salamander letter? A manipulation of scholarly evidence.” Perhaps, but more importantly it fooled the men who are supposedly prophet, seers and revelators. The salamander letters should drive you to search the Bible, instead of relying on those men in Salt Lake. Like Smith, they were false prophets, as is Thomas Monson.
Truth is truth and I am a big capital “T” truth kind of guy. But if you say “A” is the truth and I say “B” is the truth, and they are mutually exclusive then either one is true and one is false, or they both are. The standard of truth is and always has been God’s revealed word and that is where mormonism is shown to be false. We can argue about herbraism, or magic stones or temple ceremonies all day but ultimately the only guide for what is true is the Bible and the doctrines of mormonism contradict the Bible and as such are false.
CLUFF,
The Holy Spirit is what is real in your church experience? I am a born again, washed in the blood, tongues talking pentecostal believer in Jesus Christ. I continually evaluate what I observe as to whether or not it is of the Spirit. Now why is that? Quite simply, the Bible tells us to test the spirits. Well why would the Bible say that? Because some things can appear to be “spiritual” or “of the Spirit” when in reality, they are not. We are warned, for example, that not everyone who says Lord, Lord is saved….despite that they might do miracles in Jesus’ Name or even cast out demons in His name. I don’t deny that you are experiencing something. The people that followed Jim Jones, David Koresh and numerous other false prophets, had spiritual experiences. And they ended up dead along with their spiritual experiences. Do you think the dead people Mormons are seeing through the veil in the temple are of God? I fear for your soul.
Rick B:
If I understand your question it was answered in the link I gave a couple days ago:
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=49
The concensus is that the BoM was written in ancient Egyptian type symbols that were modified to represent Hebrew words.
Eric said:
The Holy Spirit does not supersede truth. He affirms it. The Mormon mantra to pray about the Book of Mormon is an appeal to receive verification without investigation, a principle totally alien to Scripture.
I will agree that the HS affirms truth, that is correct in my experience. I will also agree that investigation is necessary, but that investigation should be just as much spiritual as factual (scholarly). We can have fakery on either side, fake scholarly evidence or fake spiritual evidence. The evil one is active on both fronts.
Once you have enough spritual experiences through the Holy Spirit, you begin to know and understand the difference. At that point the Holy Spirit becomes the foundation for truth. 1 Cor 2:5 Any conflicting information from any other source (like dubious authors on JS) becomes irrelevant.
Arthur:
The Bible as it is today didn’t exist until the 3rd or 4th century after Christ. Just as many writings were rejected as were included, and revelation was not part of the equation. That is a serious manipulation, in my opinion. The JW did the same thing in recent years. They re-translated the Bible with a new gospel idea in mind. Just because it happened a long time ago doesn’t mean they found all the important components of the gospel. It is a foundation made of sand. The real foundation is the Holy Spirit’s witness i.e. that JS was a true prophet.
Luke 3:2 — Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
Does that mean the Bible grew wings and flew to where John was in the wilderness? No, it means the word of God is the word of revelation, inspiration. That is the solid foundation of rock.
I can say that the word of God came unto me in the desert (I was living in Nevada) and told me that JS was a true prophet.
GRCluff, I can say the Word of God came to me in Kentucky and told me he wasn’t. That is the problem with a “testimony” as your basis. You haven’t addressed the core issue, where do we go when we have conflicting experiences? Throw up our hands? No, we go to the Word. If you don’t trust the Word, why carry around a quad with the KJV in it? Just carry the three mormon scriptures and a collection of Ensign magazines.
What Joseph Smith added to the Bible doesn’t compliment the Gospel, it radically alters it. It changes the nature of man, of sin, of justification, of God Himself. The Gospel of the Bible and the gospel of mormonism are entirely different.
You should study the formation of the canon of Scripture by some decent scholars, and what you will find is that the works that were accepted were generally acceptd by the church at that time already, they were uniform in their message with one another and they had apostolic authorship. Those that were rejected had false doctrines, were not in general use and were not written by apostles or their surrogates. And none of the apocryphal writings support mormonism.
CLUFF,
The solid foundaton of rock in Mormonism is the magic rock Joseph Smith put in a hat during the process of “translating” the BoM from gold plates that weren’t even present during the exercise. Reformed Egyptian that represented Hebrew? Are you getting this from those “scholars” at FARM/FAIR or are you coming up with it on your own. You’re all convinced regarding the Holy Spirit and the BoM but not when it comes to the Holy Spirit and the Bible. That’s very curious. You’d throw Biblical Christianity and the Bible overboard on the basis of the word of a treasure hunter with a magic rock? This is a guy who got hauled into court at least three times for these nafarious adventures of treasure hunting with his magic seer stone?
I just listened again to the first three installments of John Dehlin’s rather lenghty interview with Grant Palmer author of “An Insiders View of Mormon Origins.” It would be worth your time to get the historical perspective on the writing of the BoM. The third installment of the interview would be most helpful. I know you have your testimony, but some facts might prove helpful if your interested in the development of the BoM.
http://mormonstories.org/?page_id=102
To make it a little easier for those who want to check out the Grant Palmer interview with John Dehlin, they are listed as numbers 030-033 on the index. What I was most impressed about with Palmer is his attitude that he was interested in the truth regardless of where it led him. He describes himself as always being the curious type with somewhat of a reformer’s bent. The critics over at FAIR or FARMS (I forget which) spent most of their time criticizing him personally and not the content of his work.
There are two things I find curious about Grant Palmer. Despite being disfellowshipped, and knowing all he knows, he’s still a Mormon. I think it’s cultural. Secondly, it’s his true love and devotion to Jesus that stands out. In fact he says that Mormons need to become more Jesus centered and less focused on other things. If I could as him one question it would be. “Grant, who is Jesus?”
Anyway, I was impressed with his honesty, his pain and his willingness to keep digging for the truth despite what it cost him. It’s worth the time to listen to the interview.
GRCluff,
Do you have any evidence to suggest the creation of the modern Canon was not inspired or revealed?
To contrast, how does your church confirm whether or not Monson will grant a revelation? In other words, does he simply speak it and that’s it, or does it need to be considered by the rest of the leadership? How long does this take?
Now, again, do you have any shred of evidence to suggest the Canon was not given to us by God himself?
GRCluff: So when the mormons cosider something as a group, carefully, before making a decision (a la racial ban new revelation of 1978) they are humble and spirit filled, when the early christians used a similar process for the creeds, it’s ‘the wisdom of men’. Pardon me, but your duplicity is showing. Also: you keep going on and on about Constantine ‘enforcing universal doctrine’ but have yet to give us any evidence to believe that. I’m sure you’ve been TOLD that’s true. We’d like sources. As for the “Egyptian changed to represent Hebrew”, yeah, go ahead and change Chinese to represent Spanish while you are at it: radically different alphabets (Egyptians using glyphs, not letters) and syntax. Are you prepared to believe anything as long as JS remains your guy?? I’m going to keep that Egyp. to Hebrew phrase handy, it’s a loaded gun, and not pointed at me. GERMIT
So what’s a Mormon to do when the facts and evidence regarding Mormonism clashes with the sanitized version the church has been peddling and with a person’s testimony. Like the rock in the hat method of “translation” that we’ve been discussing here. The church pictures show Joseph Smith pouring over the gold plates studiously translating them by the power of God. Then the truth of the matter comes out and we learn that JS was hauled into court three times for treasure hunting with a peep stone and he used that same peep stone in a hat as his method of “translating” the BoM.
So the Mormon church misleads and lies to its members. Who would believe a magic rock in a hat explanation? So at some point, gulp, a Mormon has to face up to the fact that they didn’t hear from God or they have to do a mind snap and run around looking for anything to grasp at that will support their testimony.
Some Mormons can cross back over the threshold when they realize that they were mislead and conned. But at some point the realization has to come that they didn’t really hear from God. That’s pretty tough to give up.
But the Good News is that God is still God and He sends His Holy Spirit to enlighten and guide people into the truth. He just asks that we exercise some discernment in our spiritual walk.
Mr.Cluff, I am dead certain that you are a likeable, sincere person but you don’t seem to be able to make up your mind about the merits of investigation, examination, and scholarship. Yeah, we’re big on all that precisely because anything internal and subjective is impossible to either confirm or refute (by itself). External verification CAN be manipulated, but NOT as easily: was not the truth behind the example you gave,SALAMANDER LETTERS, found?? Well, external evidence is like that: it can be, and should be examined, even if it takes awhile. You seem to go back and forth on how important this is to you. It in escapable: when YOUR externall evidence fails, the truth claims ,and credibility, of JS and others that are riding on such evidence, take a hit. Take enough hits and we start to wonder if he is a true prophet. That is how things work in the real world. Which world do you want to live in ??
GRCluff,
I went to the link you gave, I found this,
My point of wanting to be correct in my understanding here is this, The Jews were enemies of the egptyian people and were slaves to them. God told them to leave and NEVER GO BACK. So why would God take the People he loves, and mingle them with his enemies, then take His enemies language and turn it into the Word of God. Rick b
falcon, you are correct about Simon Southerton and John Tvedtnes:
“JOHN TVEDTNES
Career apologist with FARMS and retired scholar from BYU. Masters degree in linguistics, but self-appointed expert on DNA studies. Tvedtnes has written at length on the DNA issue.
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ancients/050713dna3.html
He was recently forced to retract two of the boldest claims he made in the above mentioned FAIR DVD they were so blatantly incorrect.”
(found under Simon Southerton’s section on MC)
GRC,
I once thought I felt the HS come over me and direct me to bear testimony regarding the Mormon Church. I have no idea what I said, and once I sat back down that presence was gone. All my life I heard priesthood holders say that when the HS comes over them and directs them to speak, they don’t remember what they’ve said exactly. I’ve found out that this is NOT how the HS works. Eric the Red is right, the Holy Spirit calls all things to remembrance. When The Real Thing guides you, you remember what happened and the Spirit stays with you. In my humble opinion, these “confirmations of the spirit” that Mormons feel are more lies from Satan and his demons.
Most, if not all, Mormons believe that the Bible is from God; the only caveat being that it has been corrupted by the wisdom of man. They also have received a witness from the Holy Spirit that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on the planet. The Book of Mormon is the solid rock of God’s truth revealed (well, at least one of them in Mormon thinking), and the Bible is the unstable rock. The question is, how is the Mormon’s Holy Spirit affirmation fleshed out as he reads the Bible? How does he know what is true and false as he reads each passage of the Bible? Does the Holy Spirit tell the Mormon upon each reading, “Don’t believe that verse” or “Believe that verse”? Or, is it warm feeling “yes” no feeling “No”? One might rejoin, “No, the Spirit confirms the Prophet and the Prophet warns us that the Bible has errors.” Fine, but how does one apply that daily? How do you know in your reading the Bible when you are standing on solid rock or falling in a pit?
Does the Holy Spirit affirm to each Mormon that Acts 9:7 and 22:9 mirror one of the many contradictions in the Bible? I have never heard one claim this. All MMs I have talked with attempt to engage in a shallow (albeit, erroneous) form of Bible exegesis. Once when I quoted Psalm 90:2 to an MM, his response was, “Well, the Bible has many mistakes.” Such thinking makes the Bible meaningless. If this young MM so loved the Bible, why did he with such “knee jerk” quickness, claim the Bible was full of mistakes? Truth is, this young man was raised to believe that he could discount any portion of Scripture that didn’t line up with his church’s beliefs. When the apostles preached Christ, they proved their teachings with the OT. Not once did they disparage it by saying it was mistranslated and therefore untrustworthy in some parts. When Paul received his revelation apart from man, it lined up with the teaching of the other apostles whom he had never met. The Holy Spirit brought Christ’s words to the remembrance of the apostles so that they would write them down for subsequent generations of believers.
If any new Scripture comes from God, it must be built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. No supposedly “new” revelation has done so yet! This is one of the reasons why, to answer Gordon Hinkley’s comment ““I can’t understand why those of other faiths cannot accept the Book of Mormon”, I do not accept the Book of Mormon or any other supposed divine book (Koran, et.al.) as continuing revelation. In addition, the Holy Spirit through the OT speaks plainly to the abominableness of divination (do I hear “peep stone”?). The Holy Spirit will not affirm that which contradicts what he has already affirmed.