Many parts of the Book of Mormon are copied directly from Isiah and Mathhew in the KJV bible.

The KJV bible has translation errors.How does the church defend the idea ancient Nephites whoa re supposed to have written the book on golden plates would write in the exact manner as the KJV and even translation errors?

Simple. They aren't errors but correct translations. Joe was in the middle of correcting others when he was murdered.

Did he not say it was finished?

The JS version? No, he said it was *not* finished.

I stupidly used to think to myself: when Smith got to whole block quotes of Isaiah, he was inspired to translate them more or less as they read in the KJV so that people could know that that part of the Bible was translated correctly enough for God's purposes. So, he had this ancient record with perhaps some of the purest in terms of accuracy transcriptions of Isaiah ever made with human hands, and decided not to use them because it would have proven the Book of Mormon true and then it would have been too easy.

LW, Smith said 2nd February 1833: "I completed the translation of the New Testament" History of the Church Vol.1 Page 324

On July 2, 1833 the History of the Church quotes a letter Smith wrote: We are exceedingly fatigued, owing to a great press of business. We this day finished the translating of the scriptures." History of the Church Vol.1 Page 368

Am I wrong in thinking that since the second references does not specify the New Testament and that some months have gone by he is referring to all of the Bible?

You are correct that in 1833 JS said his "translation" was "sufficiently" complete to begin publication.

But thereafter he continued revising bits and pieces, sometimes scratching out certain passages and rewriting them, other times clipping new versions to his manuscripts--and that process continued until his death.*

George Q. Cannon later wrote, "We have heard President Brigham Young state that the Prophet, before his death, had spoken to him about going through the translation of the scriptures again and perfecting it upon points of doctrine which the Lord had restrained him from giving in plainness and fullness at the time of which we write."**

What I glean from the various accounts is that JS probably thought he was done in 1933, but the revised version remained unpublished and in the meantime he kept making more changes straight through until his death.

That makes sense, doesn't it? What writer has not submitted a "final" draft but then continued to revise his own manuscript up until the editor finally draws his pistol?




*Robert J. Matthews, "A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible—A History and Commentary. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1975, p. 391.

Kathleen Flake, Translating Time: The Nature and Function of Joseph Smith’s Narrative Canon,” Journal of Religion 87, no. 4 (2007): 507


**George Q. Cannon, The Life of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1888), 142.

Joseph kept changing doctrine so he had to go back and revise sections god kept him from correcting before.

Yes.

I have looked at all the different arguments of translation, timing, revisions, etc.

But for me all is answered under one logical outcome per what I was taught, and is still taught by the church.

Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from a set of plates by the power and authority of God, which was later revised to looking at a seer stone with his head in a hat, and he could not proceed with new images until what he saw was correct and written as thus.

Therefore, if the BOM was translated\provided by an all powerful god who created the universe, set all things in motion, and perfectly balanced life on this planet as well as others, and then created man in his own image. It is illogical that the Book of Mormon would require corrections and\or tweeking. And that said book would be proven at every turn by historical writings, archeology, carbon dating, DNA, and somebody still would be speaking reformed Egyptian, as well as its writings found at various sprawling sites of cities, with bones, swords, sheilds, chariot wheels, etc.

By using the term "God is Perfect", one cannot justify things need to be corrected. Otherwise, in my opinion, god is not perfect, and man is coming up with one whopper of a story, with more changing\modified stories to convince others that the first story is the real deal.

When I was a missionary I would have said,

"He continued to receive revelations from God up until he died. Sure he referenced the Bible in the Book of Mormon, and used his family Bible, obviously. Yes he included it, but it was revelation from God, just recorded incorrectly."

Which is nonsense.

He obviously plagiarized the family Bible, complete with mistakes and played it off as "Revelation From God" and made it sound like this is something he 'translated from Golden Plates' when the Golden Plates never existed. The only witnesses claimed they saw it in their 'minds eyes'. so they imagined them.
They were delusional sycophants following a con-man with a terminal case of God complex.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2022 09:07PM by schrodingerscat.

The eight witnesses seeing the golden plates with their spiritual eyes is a perfect example of why Mormons should not be literalists. In Mormonism, you can't take anything at face value. Everything is metaphorical. You just have to figure out the metaphor because nobody tells you. They can't, because the metaphor means something different for everybody.

So the church IS true. And false, and everything in between. It's whatever you say it is if you apply Joseph's standards.

You may wonder why even have a church if that's how it works. It's a social club. You want friends, don't you? Oh, right. Mormon friends. The religion does mess with the head.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2022 08:24AM by bradley.

The restoration is ongoing.

Waren Jeffs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
What make anybody think that they are defendable?>


Many parts of the Book of Mormon are copied
> directly from Isiah and Mathhew in the KJV bible.
>
> The KJV bible has translation errors.How does the
> church defend the idea ancient Nephites whoa re
> supposed to have written the book on golden plates
> would write in the exact manner as the KJV and
> even translation errors?