I'm expanding on research I did in 2011 about the Olmecs, Pre-Olmec civilization and Smith's book of mormon stories.

In the process I just discovered yet another Joseph Smith book of mormon error:


Ether 1: 3 “And as I suppose that the first part of this record, which speaks concerning the creation of the world, and also of Adam, and an account from that time even to the great tower, and whatsoever things transpired among the children of men until that time, is had among the Jews—“

Problem: This context of the word Jews refers to the Israelite community. It is appropriate to use the term Jews to refer to the Israelite community beginning in 722 B.C.E.
Prior to this date, the term had a more narrow meaning (first referring to members of the tribe of Judah than to inhabitants of the Israelite Kingdom of Judah).


Following the death of King Solomon in the 10th century, the Israelite kingdom split into two. Israel was in the north; Judah was in the south. In 722, Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom and deported the population.
As a result, the community descends from the Israelites who lived in the Kingdom of Judah.

This is why members of the community are called Jews and the religion is called Judaism.

The Jaredites would not have referred to them as JEWS. Ether was dated around 600bce and wouldn’t have known these people as Jews having been isolated on the American continent for hundreds of years.

But Joseph Smith knew.

Why didn’t Ether refer to the group of people using the names and terminology that was known in his era?

Ether and the other Mormon writers had no problem making up entire names for people, places and things, but couldn't record the correct name of the Israelite people and instead recorded their name as Jews.
Smith had no problem making up obscure names for people, places and things using bizarre name creations that didn't even fit the Israel framework.

Smith created the book of Ether and this one slipped past Smith and his proof readers radar.

If Ether were real he would have written the correct name for the group of Israelites. He wouldn't have had any choice.

When I re-read the book of Ether and Jaredite story it's very clear to me that the story is fabricated based on the 1800's era interest in archaeology of the black olmec and the pre-olmec civilization existence and extinction.

Neither the Jaredite or Lehi people and stories, names and words have any resemblence to the real Olmec and Pre-Olmec civilization -- but the info was a big hot topic for that era.

Smith just filled in the pieces that were then missing with his own storyline of Jaredites as Pre-Olmec and Lehi as Olmecs.

Smith even used the Frasciscan Friar information in his doctrines. The Friars were keen to convert the tribes.

Traditionally the method was to add a new piece of info to an old accepted info and bridge the 2 producing a new belief system. (This is also exactly what Smith did by the way.)

The Friars developed a new god called Itzamna and put it alongside 2 old accepted gods. The new god was a bridge to Jesus. Old vases and art depicts the friar mythology of Itzamna.
Smith's era didn't quite know that Itzamna was a creation of the Friars to help convert the tribes, and it's the seed for Smith's doctrine of Jesus teaching in the America's.
Unfortunately for Smith, but fortunately for exmormons, Smith 'revealed' the doctrine and preached it before it was discovered a Friar myth.

This verifies that Smith had access to a lot of archaeological finds from his era and that he used it as a seed for his story and doctrine. He could not however get necessary details correct.
He could describe the decapitation of Laman specifically and make up words like “Liahona”, but couldn’t get specific data right with its actual real-life wording.
That’s because he made it up and couldn’t seem to do enough continuity editing. It’s like watching an old sci fi b movie that has no continuity editing.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2014 10:17PM by joan.

It was obvious that Smith was steeped in the bible, and proceeded to weave his tall tales based on what he knew. It's also obvious that he wasn't a scholar. He'd have made a good trashy paperback author in the current times.

Nice work, joan. You made me realize that there really should be a Reader's Digest condensed Book of Mormon. A half dozen pages ought to cover it.

A Marvel Comics edition would cut that page count in half.

Just another reason not to believe the BofM as historical.
Another book of fiction from the LDS church.
Thanks for the history lesson. So many errors....so little time.

Try JS as an author of fantasy fiction. I don't believe his book would rate a HBO series.

Actually that verse is Moroni talking, not Ether. I think it doesnt't make sense for Jews to refer to themselves as jews in that context too, especially considering that Moroni would have considered himself a israelite too.

Joseph was so dumb, but the people were even dumber.

Was it Moroni abridging Ethers work?
How exact was Moroni's abridgement details?


it's funny when I think about it.

If they aren't exact then what's the point of having a record of truth - the most correct book on the earth?

allegedly Ether spent a lot of trouble and time chisseling on plates. (or however he engraved in the plates, is that even recorded?) Somehow these plates are found by the Lehi's descendents and Moroni decides to make new ones taking even more time and energy.
Although that makes no sense there's even more that makes no sense.....

TheOtherHeber, what you're saying is Moroni called the group Jews?


He was interpretting and re-writing words and couldn't get the actual words written as Ether wrote them?
He wanted to change it to make it more current to his era?
There would have been no point in that since he hid them in a hill and his era didn't use them.
Did Lehi know they were called Jews?

Then we're back to the problem of Ether taking the time to engrave while Moroni messes it up, while not bothering to notate that he changed the name of the entire group of descendents and modernized it.


Now we have the problem of Lehi passing down the word "Jews" to all his descendents, finally reaching Moroni, Moroni gets the decree from God to condense Ether's teachings but forgets to share other very important information, like where in the land of Judea his group actually immigrated from Judea and where they arrived in America.

The Mormon God is obviously a God of definite and well placed omissions. Past and present.


To TheOtherHeber, I was one of those dumb people! :(

I think Moroni is just talking about the records of the old testament which were about the Jews which he would have known about from the brass plates that Lehi brought with him.

Ah, but he's supposed to be abridging the record of Ether not the brass plates that Lehi brought with him. The record of Ether was an account of the Jaredites, which account was written without the knowledge of Lehi and from a pre-Jewish reference point.

and how do we know that Moroni would have known about the name of the Jews from the brass plates?
Was it written on the brass plates?
Does Moroni's condensation abridgement of the brass plates refer to them as Jews anywhere else in the BoM?
That's a stretch of an assumption isn't it?

In that specific scripture he was not abridging the record of Ether he was just expressing an opinion based on his own history.
If it was not written on the brass plates then Jesus told them about the Jews when he appeared to them (3 Nephi 19:35)
Nephi also knew the name of the Jews because he and his father were Jews:
"I have charity for the Jew—I say Jew, because I mean them from whence I came."(2 Nephi 33: 8).
Moroni would have known this from the Nephite records.

anonow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In that specific scripture .... he was just expressing an
> opinion based on his own history.

What history? Where is this history recorded?
How do you know that? What did you read to gather that opinion?
Is it an assumption or do you have more specific details?

Thanks.




> If it was not written on the brass plates then
> Jesus told them about the Jews when he appeared to
> them (3 Nephi 19:35)


AGain, how do we know that? It's an assumption without anything to back it. No plates and nothing to show that Jesus was in America. One would think that if Jesus taught such an important history lesson the locals would have engraved it somewhere.

More importantly, the story of a white Jesus-God in America is known by the archaeological community to be a fraud. The Mayan Meso-American God Itzamna, or a white Jesus-God in America, (even the lds version of Quetzacoatl) was traced back to Fransiscan Friars attempting to convert the tribes to catholicism/christianity. It did work! This archaeology was the big fad in the 1800's. Many people were fascinated with it. Many wrote about it. Smith was the only one who incorporated it into it's own religion.

If I remember correctly though it wasn't exposed as a fraud until after Smith used it as a storyline for his doctrine. (I'll have to check the archaeological data to confirm that though.)

The ancient Mayans depicted art of the Friar Itzamna myth but not of the Lehi/Jews/Jesus story? Lamanites slaughtered Nephites and covered the continent but there's no record of it? That doesn't make sense.


> Nephi also knew the name of the Jews because he
> and his father were Jews:
> "I have charity for the Jew—I say Jew, because I
> mean them from whence I came."(2 Nephi 33: 8).
> Moroni would have known this from the Nephite
> records.

The bom recorded them as Jews but there is no American record to indicate that a large group of Jewish influenced people were present in America in the way the Bom depicts - or in any way for that matter, large or small.
What lanaguage did Nephi and Moroni speak again? Hebrew?
There's no trace of that language in America during that era. The word Jew wouldn't apply. If Moroni wrote an accurate name for the people of Israel it wouldn't have been the name "Jew". If Smith translated actual words from plates, by the direction and guidance and inspiration of God, conveying the most accurate book on the planet and conveying a 2nd witness truth restored it's unfathomable and inconceivable that the name of the chosen race of Jehovah/Elohim/God would dictated to God's prophet Smith by refering to them as "Jews".

No trace of a word depicting the Jews in another language from that era. If Jesus came specifically to America to teach the remnant of Lehi, why wouldn't there be some type of record or picture of it? Especially since it's one of the primary teachings as a second witness to the bible.


Now, it's a 2nd witness to the bible, but the only witness was offered by a story from Smith on plates that aren't located and no corroborating data from massive Lamanite populations that were allegedly covering America. The only one claiming it is Smith's story but zero proof to back it up. There is d.n.a. proof to show that Jews are not the anscestors of American natives.
There is archaeological proof showing that the "Jesus in America" concept is from a Fransiscan Friar myth. I have to wonder if the new testament story "Jesus teaching other sheep" could be a later Roman Catholic redaction/insert to assist the Jesuit or Friar missionary converstion program. Roman Catholicism were famous for redactions.

Mormon apologists try to twist genetics to offer a wide umbrella to explain the dna issue, but doesn't that mean they've denounced the Jewish label provided in the BoM.

Yet it's so important that the entire book of mormon hinges on it as a 2nd testament of Jesus.

Like the poster Phantom Shadow, I recall the old testament referring to the people as Israelites, not as Jews.
If Moroni was taught from the brass plates it would have reflected that era.
Also, there is no record of the Jewish language used in America, therefore Jesus would have spoken in their language and the actual word "Jews" wouldn't have been used. It would be more believable if Jesus used the actual Hebrew word when speaking to the people who immigrated from Israel -- or a word in their new language that means Israelites.

I appreciate your ideas by the way.
Thank you very much. It gives me more to ponder.

I have a very bad feeling about the word "Jews" in the context of the BoM and I can't shake it. I suspect that's because I know it's all fabricated. But I had that feeling before I knew it was all fabricated too, so there's that.



Edited 20 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2014 12:12AM by joan.

Joan said:
<How do you know that? What did you read to gather that opinion?
Is it an assumption or do you have more specific details?>

In the verse Moroni said;
“And as I suppose that the first part of this record, which speaks concerning the creation of the world, and also of Adam, and an account from that time even to the great tower, and whatsoever things transpired among the children of men until that time, is had among the Jews—“

I take the phrase "I suppose" to mean that he is expressing an opinion; that he assumes the history of creation, Adam, great tower, etc. was recorded by the Jews; referring to the Old Testament.

I am only saying that because it was Moroni who said it and not Ether that the verse itself is consistent in its context (the book of mormon). Because Moroni would have known that they would be called Jews based on the book of mormon scriptures I referred to (and the fact that he was considered a prophet)

For everything else you ask, I understand what you are saying. There are no other documents or records that speak of Jesus coming here or any other records of the entire Nephite or Jaredite nations, except what is claimed in the book of mormon. No reformed egyptian language has been found anywhere else except for what was claimed in the book of mormon.

Bet you a seer stone that you are a retired, unpaid, male, online missionary who has been assigned here to keep track of what we are discussing, and to give us 'correct' information when needed.

We know the Morg's tactics, because many of us used them as TBMs.

anonow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> In the verse Moroni said;
> “And as I suppose that the first part of this
> record, which speaks concerning the creation of
> the world, and also of Adam, and an account from
> that time even to the great tower, and whatsoever
> things transpired among the children of men until
> that time, is had among the Jews—“
>
> I take the phrase "I suppose" to mean that he is
> expressing an opinion; that he assumes the history
> of creation, Adam, great tower, etc. was recorded
> by the Jews; referring to the Old Testament.
>

Hi, I offered a few of my responses pertaining to this in my response to the poster called, outsider. So I won't repeat them here too.

I'm a little late as I've been busy with work and will ask you another question.

Now I'm a little confused and maybe you can clarify.
Earlier you said that Moroni was a prophet; implying that he'd get information from God or Jesus as part of revelatory function.

Here you're saying that he supposed and assumes.

How can it be both ways?
How can Moroni both suppose, assume and express his opinion while simultaneously writing in a prophet capacity. Moroni was one of the main book of mormon prophet receiving revelations (obviously he is honored with a gold statue on temples for his place in the book of mormon) and since he was allegedly recording the most true and accurate book in the history of the world (according to lds) how can he be acting as a prophet - revealing in the most importan and correct book on earth while assuming.

This is what I mean when I say it sounds more like Smith, Cowdery etc writing an assumption based on their known new testament history rather than any prophet Moroni who was supposed to have revelatory inspiration from God to record the greatest, not to mention the most accurate, book of all time.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2014 10:42PM by joan.

No reason why a prophet can't just give an opinion on some things. Moroni was actually a very minor prophet in the book of mormon. He was the son of Mormon who was the main compiler of the book. Moroni only said a few things at the end because his father told him to:

"Behold I, Moroni, do finish the record of my father, Mormon. Behold, I have but few things to write, which things I have been commanded by my father." (Mormon 8: 1)

He is featured on the temples because it was he who allegedly delivered the gold plates to smith.

I said moroni assumes because that's what it sounds like when he said "I suppose". The apostle paul said:

"For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." (2 Cor 11:5)
He used the word "suppose" several times in the New Testament, yet he is considered a prophet.

If you think that your scriptural knowledge and interpretation is going to bring us back, you are mistaken.

What are you afraid of? Joan seems to want to keep the conversation going. She's asking me questions so I am answering them.

My last time through the BoM I discovered that the book referred to the Israelites as the Jews, (and usually in a contemptuous tone of voice) while in the books of the Bible supposedly written around the same time the people referred to themselves as Israel, or Israelites. All at once mine eyes were opened and I realized that the Book of Mormon was written in early 19th century English pretending to be King James English.

That was my last straw--too long coming, I must say.

Phantom Shadow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My last time through the BoM I discovered that the
> book referred to the Israelites as the Jews, (and
> usually in a contemptuous tone of voice) while in
> the books of the Bible supposedly written around
> the same time the people referred to themselves as
> Israel, or Israelites. All at once mine eyes were
> opened and I realized that the Book of Mormon was
> written in early 19th century English pretending
> to be King James English.
>



That's what I thought too. Yes, the people of Israel, the Israelites, is the term I read in the o.t. from that period.
Did we interpret that incorrectly?
The book of Ether describes it in a very different context.
It doesn't seem like it's a reflection of Jesus teachings during Jesus alleged bom visit to America. It reads more like you said, a contemptuous tone of voice. To me this reflects smith's era more than any era from the actual old testament period.

thanks for your thoughts.

Maybe this is God's first Earth creation and he hasn't got the hang of it yet. The Devil is in the details and poor Joseph is taking all the blame for God's screw ups. Sometimes God is just speaking as a man, which he once was.

BWAAAAHAHAHA...
Oooh, Ahh, too much.
Maybe God just loves a good joke.

Joan, you've got it completely right. I'll try to follow up on this later because I don't have much time now, but the use of the term "Jew" is anachronistic for the entire BoM.

The term "Jewish" was not used for people from the Southern Kingdom for centuries after its fall. The people themselves called themselves Israelites for hundreds of years after that period.

[spoiler alert: plot hole] It would make absolutely no sense for the fictional Jeridites to call themselves Jewish or even Isrealites as that concept was not there at the time of the Tower of Babel.

In addition to being anachronistic, it also makes absolutely no sense for Lehi and Nephi, et al to be calling the people remaining in the old world "Jews" because they were the same people. Lehi and company were of the same tribe.

The reason people don't realize this is because the term "Jew" is used in the New Testament to differentiate the (Jewish!) Jesus followers from the Jewish people who rejected him. The Gospels were written somewhere around 45 to 75 years after Jesus' death. This was during the Jewish War, when the Jews revolted against the Romans and the authors were careful to try to separate themselves from mainstream Judaism.

Also, it was written smack in the middle of the contention between Jewish followers and those who didn't accept him, so the writers vilified those who didn't buy into the Christ idea.

Not to be left out, Paul attacks the Jesus followers who weren't following his beliefs either.

Anyway, back to the BoM.

It's clearly written with an early 19th century view of Christianity and "solves" all of the burning questions of the day.

Yes, I thought about the modern new testament reference to Jews as well when I read the word Jews in the BoM.
It hit me as a new testament reference which would have been more dominant during Smith's era. Christians were branching off and focusing on the new testament perhaps more than the o.t.


As Anonow (in his above listed post) explains that Moroni was a prophet and received revelation.
Except that Moroni received revelation on the word Jews but somehow got the revelation of Jesus coming to America wrong by linking to a Fransiscan Friar (now exposed as fraud) that was a hot topic during Smiths era.

Lds can explain Moroni's revelation power as the reason he used the word Jew within the BoM context, but can't use the prophet revelation excuse as the reason he copied the Fransiscan myth about Jesus in America?
But, the lds apologist CAN use the Jesus myth to support the word Jews by claiming that Moroni and the plates would have known about it through Jesus visit.
....and we're back to the Fransiscan jesus visitation myth again. And as I said before in another post above, I'd bet that the new testament story of Jesus going to other sheep is a Catholic redaction/interpolation to prop the American tribal converts and their Itzamna fraud. Roman Catholic writers were well known notorious interpolators and redactors.

The fact that it's in context with book of mormon teachings, but exposed by archaeology as a fraud, should give lds pause.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2014 02:36PM by joan.

If Google Translate version 0.0, the "Rock" version, says they were Jews, who are we to argue? Google is God, don'tcha know.