tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005490685220949062.post7356479364201216119..comments2023-10-18T10:32:30.713-05:00Comments on American Testament: The Book of Mormon: If/and Conditional Clauses in the Book of MormonAmericanTestament.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04127465919258708936noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005490685220949062.post-10357042264936144012023-07-11T04:18:22.148-05:002023-07-11T04:18:22.148-05:00You are exactly right, to my knowledge, Steve Smoo...You are exactly right, to my knowledge, Steve Smoot, on the point you made.<br />And if may complement your exigent remarks. I would remind our brothers and sisters that the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren,” he said, “that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”<br /><br /> Smith, History of the Church, 4:461; see also Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 194.<br /><br />Lastly: The best evidence can be obtained from our Heavenly Father who loves us all beyond measure; through prayer, sincerely asking in the name of our Savior Jesus Christ, if The Book of Mormon is His Word and if Joseph Smith truly was one of His prophets.<br />To which is something that I did put into practice and did receive a witness in my heart and without a doubt for me to know that The Book of Mormon truly is the Word of God, that it is “the most correct “ ( never anyone in our religion has stated the book to be ‘the perfect’ book on earth).<br /><br />With love and sincerity to my sisters and brothers I say this.<br /><br />Xavier Bianco.<br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005490685220949062.post-6574043302852498972008-12-15T23:13:00.000-06:002008-12-15T23:13:00.000-06:00Steve, you say scripture is not inerrant? If it i...Steve, you say scripture is not inerrant? If it is the word of God how could there possibly be error? You will likely respond with, "but God is not omniscient in the traditional sense." But the God of the Bible IS. And so, by implication, you are admitting that your God is not the God of the Bible. Of course, you would not want anybody to notice your implication and draw it out, but the implication is there nonetheless.<BR/><BR/>If the Bible is inerrant (it is not, on your view, I realise) and the Book of Mormon is "the most correct of any book" but it is not inerrant, then we'd have a real problem.<BR/><BR/>But I do not think my original allegations are a straw man, as you claim. God is at least as smart as an uneducated farm boy of the 1800s. The urim and thumim revealed to Smith the exact English words God wanted him to use to translate the Reformed Egyptian He originally inspired. Smith knew that if-and conditionals are meaningless in the receptor language, as you freely admit. Since God must be at least as smart as Smith, then He would have avoided that mistake (though, He may have, you apparently think, along with other Mormons, somehow made other mistakes in "the most correct of all books").<BR/><BR/>To say that the isms of the receiver text will show up in the receptor text is absolutely true, as you rightly affirm, but irrelevant in this context. For these Hebraisms are an example that CANNOT appear in proper English. Both Smith and God should have known this. And this, carefully note, is according to your own view, not that of a fanatical anti-Mormon propagandist. Like so much of Mormonism, it just doesn't add up. Anyone with eyes to see will immediately understand this.<BR/><BR/>I have not learned enough New Testament Greek, yet, to read Mark so the answer to your question is no. As I understand it, however, it is not very good compared to most (all?) of the rest of the New Testament. However, the traditional doctrine of inspiration has always denied the mechanical dictation theory which is essentially what Smith claims occured with the Book of Mormon. Mark was not seeing the exact words coming directly from the lips of God visually before his eyes within rocks he found in a well (I'll leave aside a fuller discussion of urim and thumim for another time).<BR/><BR/>The Book of Mormon never claims inerrancy? While that is probably correct, I find it strange that you are admitting to that as though it were a good thing. I am finding out that Mormon apologetics does that much of the time (appeal to evidence against Mormonism as though it were supporting it).<BR/><BR/>So then, the Book of Mormon being fallable is irrelavent to the friendly criticism at hand. God should have known at least what Smith knew because He had progressed, by mid-nineteenth century, beyond the ignorance of uneducated farmlife, to godhood, and would not have used if-and conditionals in the receptor language.<BR/><BR/>The most natural way to view the presence of the conditionals is that Smith was lying. In light of many other factors we know about Smith from not-so faith affirming history, it seems to me that we would be sufficiently justified in suspecting him to be deceiving us on this occassion. Only after being fully initiated into Mormonism (apparently by mere feeling) would we try to find some other explanation no matter how un-natural (ad hoc?) and this, of course, is begging the question.<BR/><BR/>In conclusion, the most plausible view is that if-and conditionals are one more (amongst a mountain load of others) evidence against the Book of Mormon in particular and Mormonism in general. In light of this, and other, evidence, I presume, the faithful Mormon will fall back on their personal testimony. But, as I keep trying to point out, the personal testimony is very much epistemological sifting sand. You and I both know, Dear Steve, what Jesus Christ said about houses built in such places.evangelicalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15601612681687950025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005490685220949062.post-30255066152802658172008-12-08T22:29:00.000-06:002008-12-08T22:29:00.000-06:00Evangelical:We Latter-day Saints do not hold to th...Evangelical:<BR/><BR/>We Latter-day Saints do not hold to the same level of scriptural inerrancy as you do, so I see this as a straw man. Furthermore, remember that the Book of Mormon is a translation. Because of this, we should expect these sort of Hebraisms showing up. Anyone who does a lot of translating knows that no matter how hard you try you will in some way reflect the underlying original language in your translation. In this case it is Hebrew and/or Egyptian - both of which utilize if/and conditional sentences.<BR/><BR/>Also, have you ever read Mark's Gospel in the Greek? It is barbaric grammar and many scholars lament of Mark's poor Greek. Does this make Mark any less inspired than Joseph Smith? I don't think so.<BR/><BR/>But, again, this all comes down to a straw man since 1) the Book of Mormon never claims inerrancy and 2) neither did Joseph Smith. Although it should be mentioned that I don't even think this is a problem for the Book of Mormon. If Joseph Smith were simply writing the Book of Mormon, he wouldn't have used if/and conditionals because they don't work in English.<BR/><BR/>Best wishes,<BR/><BR/>Steve SmootSteve Smoothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00785226026604586090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005490685220949062.post-60285435898031081872008-12-08T19:22:00.000-06:002008-12-08T19:22:00.000-06:00Here we see another example of purported evidence ...Here we see another example of purported evidence for the Book of Mormon really being evidence against it. How so? Because Smith is said to have translated the plates into English under direct inspiration of God. It was God Himself who "on an English assignment would surely get an F grade."evangelicalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15601612681687950025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005490685220949062.post-43142250487674402172008-07-12T09:08:00.000-05:002008-07-12T09:08:00.000-05:00The "if . . . and" variant was changed for the 183...The "if . . . and" variant was changed for the 1837 Kirtland edition of the Book of Mormon, including the pericope of Moroni 10:3-5.Robert Boylanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01252989841442658670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005490685220949062.post-45552875450214336172008-07-11T22:47:00.000-05:002008-07-11T22:47:00.000-05:00It is strange to think of Moroni's promise differe...It is strange to think of Moroni's promise differently than what we have now. How soon did JS make the changes? Was it the next edition or did it take him a while?Evgeniihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05787950777870804904noreply@blogger.com