Okay, why is it that all official LDS (and other denominational) prayers continue to use words like ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ when they could be using contemporary English?
Not to mention the fact that this 17th century language is generally used incorrectly. I believe the intent is wrong as well, since ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ are actually less formal.
Paul said something about this in 1 Corinthians 14:19:
yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
Thee/thou were actually the originally neither formal nor informal. Then, you became formal (you was the plural…think royal “we”). This made thou more familiar. However, since we’ve lost that distinction in English and thou is used for prayers almost exclusively now, it’s been elevated to a status of respect.
Personally, I really like this quirky feature of English. I get to both show respect and intimacy in the prayers to my Father. I’m for it.
Plus, let’s lose the KJV first, then start talking about updating our language. I wonder if the continued insistence on using “thou” is related to the use of the KJV and the language of the BoM. That’d make sense, right?
dele that first the. I promise I know what I’m talking about, even if I can’t write coherent English.
I remember being taught in SS and Seminary that the formal English was what God wanted us to use when we spoke to him. Once again I think I/we were mislead by church leaders who preferred the sounds of formal english.
Languages change over time and prayers will also change or you end up like the Catholics did having mass in a lanuage (Latin) few people understood.
Thou, thy/thine, and thee, are all informal English. We use them in prayer to show our closeness to God. He is our loving Father and we have a close relationship with him.
Just like using tu instead of vous French, tu instead of ustead in Spanish, or Du instead of Sie in German.
The people who told you it was formal English didn’t have a good understanding of English grammar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_grammar#Case
Just like I don’t have a good understanding of proofreading for spelling mistakes and typographical errors.
…and if you were to ask the average member, they’d probably say that it was more formal to use those terms, gary.
It’s another example of monkey-see, monkey-do.
That doesn’t mean it is more formal. Of course, some may be mixing up “more respectful” with “more formal”.
So you have rules to talk with God.
My understanding is that it is not about respect or formality, although it feels that way to English speakers.
It is about being close to the Father. Just like in Spanish places they say Tu to their family members and Ustead to people they meet on the street.
It is not a rule, just a convention like showing north at the top of a map. Not correct just the way we most often do it.
Its curious that some of these same olde English words are found numerous times throughout the book of mormon, which is said to be an inspired work recorded in an ancient language on gold plates that were buried on a hill in New York in A.D. 421 by Moroni. He was the last of the Nephites (ancestors of the American Indian). But if he was the last, why are there American Indians today? As the story goes, sometime between 1827 and 1829 Moroni, the angel, comes to Joseph Smith revealing the existence and location of these golden plates. Subsequently, aided by the power of God, and by using stones called the Urim and Thummim, Smith say’s he translated these plates into English.
In the Book of Mormon there are numerous instances where the writer uses some of these words that were not relevant to his time. Rather, these (“prayest,†“durst,†“thou,†“thee,†“thy,†“thine,†“hast,†“doth,†“knoweth,†“hearest,†“cometh,†“thirsteth,†etc.) are words peculiar to the English spoken in the early 1600s, suggesting that in reality the text was lifted from the KJV Biblical translations.
It is indisputable that despite claims of divine inspiration the writer of the book of mormon had considerable exposure to King James terminology.
There are also numerous instances where whole passages in the book of mormon, have been taken directly from the English translation of the King James Bible. So where is the inspiration of God in the copying, praying, or use of these words in today’s mormon lifestyle? Where is the honesty and truth at the foundation of a belief structure which is seemingly founded upon a fraud perpetrated by Joseph Smith.
John,
You may be interested in these archived posts and accompanying discussions:
Thanx! I will check these links out and get back to you.
Thanks again for the links to those previous blog threads. However, though these strings indicate others ponder similar ideas, I found little of any good purpose in so far as answering my question.
I would like to bring forward the following for your consideration and response:
In the original edition of the Book of Mormon, there is much evidence of fraud—that is, the use of
words, phrases, and sentences that reveal an obvious attempt to deceive. Instances of this are so numerous
and so blatant they cannot be ignored. The following provide just a few examples.
• Alma 37:38, dated at 73 B.C., speaks of the people using a “compass.†However, such an instrument
was not invented until about A.D. 1100. How could there be a divinely inspired translation of a word
describing something that did not exist? This is a mark of fraud.
• 1 Nephi 18:25, dated at 589 B.C., speaks of “horses†and “asses.†But, these animals were unknown
in the Western Hemisphere until the Spaniards introduced them about 450 years ago. Can anyone
honestly believe that such a bungled mistake occurred as a result of divine revelation?
• Ether 9:19 speaks of “elephants†being in America when the Jaredites arrived, which was supposed
to have been around 2250 B.C. However, it is a well-known fact that elephants were not native to
America. To suggest that they were is absurd, and proves the Book of Mormon to be erroneous. If
someone were to argue that elephants might possibly have been brought to America in the Jaredites’
boats, such an argument could be disproved easily since elephants were not native to Bible lands either.
• Surprising as it may seem, no less than six times the Book of Mormon employs the abbreviation
“&c†(and so forth), a usage peculiar to the nineteenth century (subtitle of 2 Nephi; Jacob 1:11;
Mosiah 8:8; 23:5; Alma 3:5). It can hardly be suggested that such a symbol is a “translation†from
ancient writings. This kind of mistake is clear and compelling evidence of the recent origin of the
book.
• In Jacob 7:27, the French word adieu occurs. But how could a modern French word have found its
way into those ancient plates? This is additional evidence of fraud, and presents grounds for rejecting
the Book of Mormon.
• In Jacob 3:11 and Mosiah 29:14, the word “faculties†appears. However, this is a term dating back
no earlier than middle English. Strange, indeed, that it would be “translated†from a word on an ancient
plate dating over 1,000 years earlier.
– 8 –
• 2 Nephi 29:3 reads, “A Bible, A Bible, we have got a Bible…†This statement is made in reference to
the Jewish Old Testament, which is dated at about 550 B.C. However, the word “Bible†is the English
transliteration of the Greek term “biblos,†which came into use over 1,500 years later.
In using the word “Bible,†the writer of the Book of Mormon made a serious blunder that shows the book to be of recent origin and, hence, fraudulent in its claims.
source
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Book-of-Mormon.pdf
There are more examples that can be perused at the above site; I just don’t feel like going any further with it since this is not research I have conducted on my own, but rather that of an independent source upon which I rely for the foundation of my query.
So what say you good sir? How do you reconcile these discrepancies with your what the church purports as truth??
Hi, just surfed onto this blog. I’ve been wanting to write about this question myself.
“Thou” indeed was the informal 2nd-person singular pronoun in English, but that’s not well-known or understood anymore, so that to most English speakers it seems formal – completely opposite from how the cognates to “thou” are still used in other languages. Does anyone here tell their spouse “I love thee”? If not, then I think there’s going to be some unavoidable stiffness in your prayers if you use the archaic language.
I think that currently the non-English speaking members of the Church have the advantage over us English-speakers, since their prayers can be more easily free and intimate, as they are supposed to be. It just doesn’t do to have formality in the way when I’m trying to pour out my soul to my father in heaven. As for public prayers, I can see how formality could be more appropriate. If we’re going to keep using the KJV in order to appreciate its beautiful language, it’s important to learn to understand the archaic language – and use it properly (especially since the Book of Mormon uses the same kind of language).
In response to posts 10 and 13: at the base of it all, the author of the posts doesn’t seem to know the first thing about how translation works — by his criteria, any English translation of any ancient text must be fraudulent. (I’m still relatively new to the “bloggernacle” — how common is this kind of trolling? How do you decide how much energy to spend answering such posts?)
The translation of the plates into the Olde English is fraudulent because of the time line of the supposed translation, and the Olde English used in the translation were from separte periods in time. Thusly, (and I use the word ’cause it fits so well) the writing of the Book of Mormon is much more recent than it purported to be by it’s author. Hence the fraud – Clouseau!
I have a masters of communication studies and a minor in English. I am familiar with Greek and posses a solid understanding of Hermaneutics. I do know the first thing about how translation works, as the core of my studies dealt with the development of language. However, the moderators of this site will not allow me to go into a multi page dissertation to make my point. So if its a wee bit sketchy . . . well that is why.
I appreciate your thoughtful and tempered response to my posts. Now go to the website of the link I provided to see what the research for this information is attempting to explain. In it’s entirety, I am certain you will find more valid arguments to make.
Quite common. Usually we respond once or twice and then leave it be.
Not I, once the wound has been established, I prefer to tear away at the threads as to expose the soft pink bits that lay bare for the predatory picking of a ravenous mind seeking to expose the bare bones of the truth.
(rofling – but with a sense that the best rofl is yet to come)
Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from an ancient language into a particular form of English that was commonly associated with scriptural writings. It might be called an ersatz King James English. That doesn’t indicate any fraud at all.
The word “compass” was the best word in English, at the time the Book of Mormon was translated, to explain the guiding instrument it referred to.
The references to horses and asses either refer, in the opinion of many (including me), to actual horses and asses (thus perhaps confirming scholarship of the 19th Century that proposed there were too many horses in North America to have come only from the European imports) or, in the opinion of others, to other animals that were close in nature to horses and asses, thus making the words fairly good choices for translation.
Ditto for elephants.
It doesn’t matter in the least that the word “faculties” didn’t exist until middle English. It certainly existed long before the time of Joseph Smith. Hence, it was available for Joseph to use in translating the book. Likewise for the term “etc.” or, if you prefer, “&c.”—the term was common at the time of translation, and was a perfectly appropriate choice. And, of course, the same thing applies to prophetic pronouncements about the Bible. Nephi foresaw a time when an important book of scripture would be had among the Gentiles, and would be erroneously viewed as the last words God was allowed to speak. The most appropriate word for Joseph to use in translating the ancient text—whatever word Nephi used—was the English word of Joseph’s own time, “Bible.”
No one claims the Book of Mormon was written at the time when “thee” and “thou” were in common usage. Joseph Smith translated the ancient text from a strange tongue into his own English language. His English included the archaisms found in the Bible, which were appropriate for the rendering of a sacred text. The same thing has been done with translations of other old writings, in periods long after “thee” and “thou” had disappeared from common speech.
Incidentally, rick, I don’t think I can agree that “other denominational” prayers are always rendered in these words. In fact, the trend among most Protestants and even Catholics is towards “you” and “your” in prayer, in my personal observation.
Evangelicals have moved away from the use of the words I mentioned, but my experience has been Catholics, Lutherans and Dutch Reform members still continue to use the flowery archaic language.
That’s my experience — as always your mileage may vary.
Its for the sake of pompousness, that these words are uttered forth from the lips of some who feel it brings them just a little closer to God. God just wants us to be real, honest, and faithful to Him. The trundling forth of these Olde English words in prayer, apart from the common regional vernacular, is symptomatic of the religious syndrome.
“Its for the sake of pompousness, that these words are uttered forth from the lips of some who feel it brings them just a little closer to God.”
Evidence? (or just your opinion?)
“In Jacob 7:27, the French word adieu occurs. But how could a modern French word have found its
way into those ancient plates? This is additional evidence of fraud, and presents grounds for rejecting
the Book of Mormon.”
ltbugaf has already addressed this somewhat. I just want to add that none of the English words in the Book of Mormon existed in 500 BC. How on earth did they find their way onto the ancient plates? The answer is simple: they didn’t. Neither did the French word adieu nor the Greek-derived (via Latin) Bible.
Being fluent in another language (I lived in Portugal for 2 years and minored in Portuguese in college), I am quite familiar with the nuances of translating from one language to another. It is not a clear cut process of mechanically replacing the Portuguese word with an exact English cognate. Many idiomatic expressions in Portuguese have no clear cognates in English (and vice versa). Arguments about exacts words chosen by Joseph Smith during translation of the Book of Mormon are meritless and have become tiresome.
But if the word didn’t exist at the (purported) time of translation either (but much later), how did that word appear in the translation. It’s because the time of translation has been stated as much earlier than it really was.
Further evidence still: Exactly how was the Book of Mormon supposed to have been “translated†from the golden plates? Describing how this was accomplished, David Whitmer, one of the so-called “three witnesses†to a testimony appearing at the front of the Book of Mormon, said: “Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God and not by the power of man†(Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Missouri, 1887, p.12). In addition, at the front of the Book of Mormon, in the section titled “Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith,†it is stated that the book was “translated into modern speech by the gift and power of God as attested by Divine affirmationâ€.
David Whitmer provided the following detailed explanation of how the “translating†came about:
Martin Harris, another of the three witnesses, wrote: “The translation was just as it was engraven on the plates precisely in the language then used†(The Myth of Manuscript Found, p. 71,). He went on to state: “The translation of the characters appeared on the Urim and Thummim, sentence by sentence, and as soon as one was correctly translated the next appeared†(p. 91.) Joseph F. Smith, sixth president of the Mormon church, said: “Some persons have thought that the Lord revealed to Joseph the ideas, and that Joseph conveyed those ideas into the English language. But this is not so. The Lord gave not only the ideas but the language itself—the very words†(The Territorial Inquirer, March 2, 1881,).
So, according to Mormon faith, it wasn’t translated by Smith as you attest. It was however translated by God – Himself! Will you then say God committed the fraud?
Please Capt., and with all respect, equip yourself with the background before you argue the points.
FTR, JFS was not president of the Church when he said that.
Thanx Kim for clarification re: JFS! Peace out on this one!
Are you claiming that the word “Adieu” didn’t exist in 1830? Are you claiming that English-speaking Americans never used the word Adieu? According to the 1828 edition of Webster’s Dictionary it was in use in English at the time.
No one is claiming that the word Adieu was written by Jacob on the golden plates. What is being claimed is that the word Adieu was the best word with which Joseph Smith was familiar to convey the meaning of the original word (whatever it may have been). As you rightly point out “it is stated that the book was ‘translated into modern speech by the gift and power of God as attested by Divine affirmation'”. In other words, the original words were translated from their original language into English.
Ah, yes, the time-honored ad hominem attack. When all else fails, attack the messenger as uninformed, right? Tell me, which part of the “background” was I not understanding? The part where (according to the quotes you supplied) God told Joseph Smith that the original word (or phrase) used by Jacob would be best translated into English as the French Adieu? I fail to see any “fraud” in that.
“Further evidence still:”
John, you have yet to provide any evidence. You also choose to exclude any that weakens your position.
The following comprise a portion of the background in which you lack understanding:
You argue that Smith translated the plates into the English vernacular He was most familiar with. Yet the previous 3 points, taken from Mormon belief, quite plainly tell us He did not translate the plates the way you claim. Mormon belief states that the words in the Book of Mormon are just as they were engraven (precisely in the language then used)on the plates.
I repeat, precisely in the language then used!!!! Well thats impossible because (according to Mormon belief – not mine) the language then used (at the time the plates were engraven) was a language that existed long before the Olde English used in Smith’s supposed translation.
yeesh, I quit. Only God can grant you understanding!
I leave you in His hands, bro!
The problem of course is that there is no evidence that the plates were even used directly in in the translation process. In fact, there is even some suggestion that the plates were not even in the same room. I fail to see then how it can even be established each English word has a direct relationship with each character on the plate. Of course, the quote you used form David Whitmer even illustrates that he did not use the plates directly. I am sure you noticed that.
Oh John, so many holes to poke…
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means…
Finally, we are getting somewhere.
If this is true, and if it is also true that the plates weren’t necessarily in the same room when the translating occurred, why was it necessary to have the plates in his possession at all? and why would there be such a danger of losing the plates? Why would someone call this translating? It sounds more like receiving revelation.
Some things in this story don’t add up.
Good questions, Jeff. Unfortunately, we only know the what, not the why.
Yes Kim, I noticed that. Yet, (according to Mormon belief) weren’t the (seer) stones showing the translation of the plates (exactly as it was worded)?!
JM, I fully understand the definition of translation (a written communication in a second language having the same meaning as the written communication in a first language.), however the definition of the word translation, that is not the crux of my point.
The point I am making (over & over) is: Mormon belief states that the words in the Book of Mormon (received by Joseph Smith, through the divinity) are just as they were engraven (precisely in the language then used – at the time of the plates engraving)on the plates. This is impossible, because the Olde English vernacular Smith wrote did not exist when the plates were engraven. Neither did some of the ideas exist (ie: Compass). So as Jeff says, “some things in this story don’t add up”.
We haven’t even begun to consider the countless errors of syntax, grammar (even for the Olde English), spelling, and words that have never even existed in any language.
How could these mistakes/words get into a translation allegedly being overseen by the “power of God� An example is listed below.
That this book is promoted as inspired by God is a reflection on God’s wisdom, and on His ability to
produce a volume containing marks of inspiration. Would God inspire a translation in which corrections would have to be made in later editions?
The writer of the Book of Mormon not only misspelled many words, but also had a practice of inventing new, contrived words, or simply using words incorrectly. The following provide examples of such instances.
Obviously these are contrived and misused words, and do not bear marks of inspiration. Since God is “not the author of confusion†(1 Corinthians 14:33), He would not have allowed such words to be penned. (http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Book-of-Mormon.pdf)
Jeff, I’ll let you tackle that point.
I’ve encountered this line of reasoning before, when I was talking to someone about the book of Revelation and I was trying to explain that John and other prophets of the Bible wrote in their own language according to their own culture, knowledge, perspective, etc. The response was: oh no, it was inspired, therefore every single word they wrote must have been perfect and just how God thought.
At the core of a lot of anti-Mormon attacks I’ve seen (leaving aside the straw men, sweeping generalizations and loud boasting of one’s own credentials) is this idea that scripture is perfect, complete, and that no more of the word of God is needed: as if God wrote not only the 10 Commandments but the entire Bible with his own finger – as if God’s prophets have no individuality or fallibility, like an entirely different species above us mere humans.
Well then, which translation of the Bible do you use, John? Can you use the King James, since it was based heavily on Tyndale’s work and Tyndale made up words with gleeful abandon? Maybe you can’t use any English translations of the Bible, if you can’t find any made by someone claiming prophetic gifts. Well, I guess if you’re “familiar with Greek”, all you need to do now is learn Hebrew and you’ll be able to read the scriptures in their flawless, pristine language and completeness? -Until the next oldest manuscripts are unearthed with differences in wording . . .
I can see how it may seem comforting to some to not admit any “mistakes of men” (quoting the Book of Mormon’s introduction) in any of God’s works, but to me it is the opposite: I am comforted that God worked and still works with people who make mistakes — and have personalities! — otherwise He might as well do it all Himself.
But probably you won’t be convinced by any of this, and we won’t be convinced by your attempts. If you would just quit and leave us in God’s hands, we would all be the better for it.
And the point you are making is pointless. Where do you get your definition of Mormon belief? Is that your interpretation of what I believe? If so, you are wrong, and so is the whole premise of your argument.
You keep telling me what I believe. I have yet to hear anything you say being congruent with what I believe.
To put this in plain english, I am “Mormon” and I do not believe what you are describing as my beliefs. Your arguement is invalid.
John, you are in the thick of thin things.
I agree with what Cstanford said. It seems to me that if we say that inspiration means something had to be done a certain way, then we’re limiting the ways in which the Holy Spirit can work through people. That sounds like a conservative Protestant definition of inspiration, not a Mormon one.
Even Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon wasn’t perfect. And, yes, grammatical errors can be found in some of the best Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that we have. What’s the big deal? Oh, yeah. It’s a straw man.
John wrote:
and
Except that there is nothing to tackle. Syntax, grammar, and spelling shouldn’t even be a concern. Can you honestly say that the language mistakes make the message less valuable?
I don’t make a logical connection between correct syntax, grammar, and spelling with divinely inspired works. As a general rule, most Mormons also do not make that connection.
If your point in bringing up these mistakes is:
“If spelling mistakes, then not divinely inspired” you are not going to find takers here for that line of reasoning.
If your point instead was:
“If Translation story is more like inspired revelation rather than translation, then not divinely inspired” I might bite, but even then, it seems like you are merely making a moot point.
CStanford of course I agree with you, the authors of the Gospel wrote just as you have stated. Without a doubt you are correct. However Mormon belief doers not claim the same to be true of the translation of the plates! Open your eyes and you might quit tripping on this point!! As well, I am not anti-Mormon, if this is what you are suggesting, I am anti-mind slavery! I use the King James, Spirit Filled Life Bible, NIV, Strong’s Concordance, and I am learning Hebrew. But, I don’t trust Jews all that much! Yes, I know Jesus was a Jew. However, that does not make all Jews good men. Just consider Ariel Sharon as an example! Certainly you are also correct that God works with men who are fallible. However true divine inspiration is not fallible when God truly grants it through fallible men. I’m not trying to convince you – only the Gospel of John can do that (The truth shall set you free).
Dear JM, if you don’t believe what I’ve written then you better get confirmation of your beliefs from the temple, because that’s where what I’ve written regarding the plates will be proved to you. Hey, at least I am prompting you in order to learn more of just what you (Mormons in general — not personally JM) believe (and if you believe along the same lines as other Mormons). I have many Mormon friends, who obviously, know more than you must know, because they agree with me that indeed these are troubling points of their faith. Instead of being so defensive why not provide some irrefutable proof that I do not know what I am talking about? The thick of thin things . . . hmmmm, can I use that sometime?
Well Eric, don’t blame me cause I didn’t say it I am just quoting what your beliefs are taken from other sites, personal conversations with Mormon businessmen, and Mormon sites as comparison. Find me some mistakes in Greek and Hebrew translations of the Holy Bible — PLEASE — I need a challenge! All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 2 Tim. 3:16 NIV
Jeff, I agree the language mistakes do not make the message less valuable. I also agree most Mormons do not make the connection between correct syntax, grammar, and spelling with divinely inspired works. Yet, do you disagree that God does not make mistakes, so how should His (supposed) divine inspiration be fraught with those mistakes? Why will I not find takers for this argument? Do Mormon’s think divine inspiration is fallible? Moses did not make any mistake when God inspired him! Or maybe God got lazy, and picked Joseph Smith just willy-nilly and didn’t give a flying hoot what he had to say about His word. ‘Cause that would really make me feel sorry for all Mormons (just as I do any group that is being manipulated – I’m not saying you are being manipulated). I am just stating, from the Mormon beliefs, how Mormons believe/are taught the Gold engraven plates were translated. Thank you again for a well thought out and well presented response.
and the truth shall set you free John 8:31-32b
So it’s fallible when he grants it through infallible men?
The temple says nothing about the translation of the golden plates.
That doesn’t mean they know more than JM. It means they believe the same thing you do.
And you think that qualifies as credible sources?
You’re serious? Maybe it’s because humans did the translation, not him. Maybe it’s because he used a middleman instead of doing it himself.
Well, I do. But I am one Mormon.
Yes He used a middleman, but it w0as His chosen middleman. So did He choose the wrong man?
Its fallible if fallible men are not really hearing from God.
So the temple does not ascribe any faith in what the 3 witnesses had to say about the translation? Sorry then, I accept your correction on this matter, and will refer it to my elder friend. I’ll get back to you on this one or maybe ask him to.
I wasn’t trying to say that they know more than JM, just that I have a preponderance of evidence on my side (through discussions with other Mormons) . . .and what has he brought to the table?
Yes I do consider my Mormon sources credible, as they are speaking in defense of their faith. They certainly are not out to sabotage it.
You’re serious, you really believe Divine Inspiration is fallible – Kewl! Of course then it is not Divine Inspiration, since Divine Inspiration implies the thoughts coming from the perfect mind of God. If it’s wrong it ain’t Divine.
Let me repeat what Mormon belief claims:
Mormon belief states that the words in the Book of Mormon (received by Joseph Smith, through the divinity) are just as they were engraven (precisely in the language then used – at the time of the plates engraving)on the plates. This is impossible, because the Olde English vernacular Smith wrote did not exist when the plates were engraven. Neither did some of the ideas exist (ie: Compass).
Will someone please just address this pivotal point. Give me some logical explanation (other than Joseph Smith lied) for this problem.
You never know, I might want to believe Ol’Smithy too.
John wrote:
“Will someone please just address this pivotal point”
I must not be understanding you correctly. The “pivotal point” you are trying to make is that there is something wrong with the Book of Mormon because “the Olde English vernacular Smith wrote did not exist when the plates were engraven”.
Let’s simplify that statement. You’re saying if Olde English Smith used didn’t exist when the Book of Mormon was written in a variation of egyption then it’s impossible for the Book of Mormon to have been written in a variation of Egyption?
What you are addressing is so easily identifiable as a fallacy it’s a waste of time to respond. If you are serious about your question, please spell it out otherwise we’ll just have to assume what you are trying to say.
The reality of Reformed Egyption may have its own troubling origins, but you are not even close to addressing that.
As for some of the ideas not existing, it’s not logical to say that “some of the ideas [did not] exist”. A lack of knowledge about some of the ideas existing does not mean that they couldn’t have existed.
But we don’t even have to take it that far.
Your example, the word compass, is used 5 times (with relevance) in the Book of Mormon. The so called compass, the Liahona, acted like a compass in the sense that they could look at it and it would tell them which way to go.
It only worked when God was happy with them. It did not have a magnetized pointer free to align itself with Earth’s magnetic field. It was only a compass in the sense that it told them which way to go. There is nothing damning about this fact. To me this is frustratingly obvious.
There are plenty of things wrong with the Church and the story, but you sir, need to take an introductory course in logic.
Please don’t take this the wrong way if I am mistaken, but because you seem like a smart guy, statements like the ones above are starting to make me question your sincerity. Are you really having a hard time with these concepts or are you just trolling?
No its impossible for the Book of Mormon to be written in Olde English vernacular and with so many mistakes, since if it was transcribed according to Mormon teaching the words in the Book of Mormon (received by Joseph Smith, through the divinity) are just as they were engraven (precisely in the language then used – at the time of the plates engraving)on the plates.
An example of a problem: The Egyptians, had no idea what a compass was (it had not been invented – nor was there any similar device), therefore there was no word construed to describe such an object. This is not a lack of knowledge that informs us it did not exist rather archeological fact.
You think perhaps the Rosetta stone (or temple heiroglyphics) might have mentioned a compass had there been a compass invented. Unless you possess the credentials, don’t pretend to know more than scientific discovery has already proven.
It didn’t exist because their was no Egyptian word to describe it. Or do you suppose they always said, “hey Nephi pass me that thing-a-ma-jig will ya'”.
It doesn’t matter what the Book of Mormon describes its use as. Joseph Smith should not have called it a compass if it was true that the Book was translated according to how he claims it was. This is because, how could he have translated a word from an idea which did not exist at the time of the plates engraving. He couldn’t!
In addition, at the front of the Book of Mormon, in the section titled “Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith,†it is stated that the book was “translated into modern speech by the gift and power of God as attested by Divine affirmationâ€. God would not make this mistake – Joseph did!
Do not simplify my statement, because then you are not reading it in its original context. Therefore you can not address it in its entirety as it is posed.
I do thank you for finally agreeing with me that “there are plenty of things wrong with the church and the story”, by doing so it proves that the story was not an accurate account of the immutable truths of God revealed to Joseph Smith – and yet the church does nothing to reconcile these fallacies.
You also say “you sir, need to take an introductory course in logic”. Well all I gotta’ say to that is Oooooo, ad hominen (rofling).
Trolling? heck I’m still baiting the hook {:- >
“I have a preponderance of evidence on my side”
You have no evidence. You have the opinion of your friends. An opinion that does not match the official church doctrine.
The logical fallacy of your argument could take many forms. Not only are you appealing to an anonymous authority (your friends) but you are making a hasty generalization.
Neither you or your friends are qualified to speak on behalf of the church in declairing an official position on doctrine or belief.
When you are presented with actual evidence of what the church’s position is, you don’t accept it.
Basically, you have an erronious idea of what the church’s official position is on this argument based on a small sample (your friends opinion) and you are applying that generalization to the church and it’s members as a whole.
This discussion will never go anywhere based on the premise you present.
John, this is basic logic, but you just don’t seem to want to play by the rules.
John wrote:
What do you know about my opinion that would make you use the word “finally”? Has my opinion changed? No.
Also, no matter what I think of the church, it only proves that I hold the opinion there are things in the church I don’t buy. How could my opinion prove anything else?
I may be critical, but I try to be honest in my evaluation. I don’t feel the same honesty coming from you.
John wrote:
I’m sorry you didn’t like my simplification. I was trying to make it easier to determine if your argument was flawed. It’s something I learned from my Logic 1000 class. If you really feel that I changed the premise of your argument, please show me how. If you are just trolling, then don’t bother.
Previously you asked for someone to “please just address this pivotal point”. I feel I’ve addressed it in an honest fashion. Unless I misunderstood you going over it again is not going to help you.
I suppose it may have come off as a little pretentious, but the reason I suggested you take a logic course was not to discredit you but as a very real opportunity to understand why your arguement is flawed.
Jeff, once again, if you insist upon quoting my words, as opposed to thinking for yourself), please do so within the original context in which I have placed them and in their entirety.
Example. I said, “I do thank you for finally agreeing with me that “there are plenty of things wrong with the church and the storyâ€, by doing so it proves that the story was not an accurate account of the immutable truths of God revealed to Joseph Smith – and yet the church does nothing to reconcile these fallacies.”
Jeff do not shorten my words to suit your argument!
I use the word “finally”, because your statement, “There are plenty of things wrong with the Church and the story”, indicates to me that you have reached the spot to which I endeavoured to bring you.
JM, I was not appealing to my friends, I am appealing to you! I use the word “Friends” (when mentioning my sources), as a respective descriptor. Not to indicate we are pals. Sorry to further confuse you!
Indeed some of the people, of whom I inquire for insights, are quite qualified to speak on behalf of the church – they hold positions of Mormon authority.
JM, show me the actual evidence you claim you have presented. All you have done is argue and moan!
If I am making generalizations, as you claim, then I am making generalizations based upon what Mormon leaders have informed me. Are these leaders mistaken about the teachings? Do you purport to understand better than them? I would be pleased to hear that you do know better!
I was quite unaware JM that you dictate the rules for basic logic, but I can see now this is true. Otherwise why should so many of your faith be so lost to the truth. A logical conclusion, which isn’t a circular argument, I might point out.
Jeff, I enjoy your commentary. It is as you say a critical and honest evaluation. Too bad you don’t feel the same honesty coming from me – Yet, I’m not trying to prove anything to you!
So Jeff, you took a course on logic, do you then presume to act accordingly? Just as you are neither impressed with my somewhat accomplished credentials, I am not impressed by yours. C’mon man one course on a subject does not make one Plato. (rofling)
Jeff (I dumbed it down for you). It is basic communications knowledge, evidenced by opposing political factions universally, whenever someone breaks an entire statement into separate portions for presentation, in their distinctiveness to the entire statement, the original statement is then subjected to an entirely disparate evaluation of its individual parts. As opposed to its entire and congruent claims. It can thusly then be construed to represent entirely different meaning from its intended one.
Jeff, you have addressed my pivotal point in a manner I found most favourable to the information I was presenting. I thank you again for that and I will not feel the need to represent it . . . .at least not today (rofling). However, you might enjoy checking out Bluesman’s comments on the “What do you get” thread. Finally, if you only find my argument flawed . . . but not its point, then logically I have achieved my goal!
Cheerio, Ol’ Sport!
Curious that John claims you can’t use the modern word “compass” to describe a device that gives directions, because the Egyptians weren’t familiar with compasses. I’d like to find some logic in that statement, but I just can’t. It was a device that gave directions. Why waste time and space circumlocuting when the translator can just use the word “compass”? We don’t know what word—or words—the plates contained that named the Liahona. Whatever word or words were there, it is a perfectly reasonable and proper act of translation to render it or them as “compass.” The point is to translate *meaning* not to transliterate *words.*
(…and by the way, I do wish John would stop misusing the term *Olde English* (or, less pretentiously, *Old English,*) which correctly refers to a form of English far older than anything used in the Book of Mormon, or the King James Bible.)
That being the case, why did Joseph feel the need to make up completely new words?
*yawn*
You’re serious? Might as well ask: why were new words made up for the English Bible? Like “atonement”?
Why do people still feel the need to make up completely new words in everyday speech? Every time the OED goes through a new edition it has to add new words.
I can’t believe I’m still spending time on this thread.