1 Mormons Refuse to Defend Their Book!
MORMONS REFUSE TO DEFEND THEIR BOOK!
(Investigator 46, 1996
Repeated efforts to get Mormons to answer a typed essay titled NOTES ON THE BOOK OF MORMON failed!
Various pairs of Mormon missionaries agreed to respond to the essay for Investigator but returned it without response.
Several gave an address or phone number of their public relations office. The essay was sent with a covering letter but no reply came.
Elders Matthew Milne (from near Wagga Wagga, NSW) and Gabriel Yanez (who grew up in Brazil) were among missionaries consulted.
Another pair were elders Alger (from Salt Lake City, Utah) and Bronson (Monticello, Utah).
The origin of the essay could not be traced. It was obtained in 1970 as four typed foolscap pages; then used as a bookmark for about 23 years.
Mormonism began in 1830 after Joseph Smith (1805-1844) wrote The Book of Mormon and said it was a translation of hieroglyphics on gold plates, the location of which were announced by a ghost.
After getting an orphan girl pregnant in 1835, Smith announced God ordered him to be a polygamist. He acquired between 27 and 49 wives – historians lost count.
number about 9
million world wide.
NOTES ON THE BOOK OF MORMON
THE BOOK OF MORMON
SINCE THE FIRST EDITION IN 1830.
Students of the Book of Mormon have found in excess of 3,000 changes made since the book first made its appearance in 1830.
These consist of the correction of the 1830 edition’s faulty grammar and punctuation, correction of spelling, re-arranging sentences, and the addition or deletion of words and entire phrases. Inevitably, some of these changes have made differences in the meanings of certain portions of the book.
when studying changes in the Book of Mormon, is that the
was declared to be a perfect one. If this is true, why did changes need
to be made? James E. Talmadge, one of the most authoritative writers on
Mormon doctrine, and author of the Mormon doctrinal work, A Study
the Articles of Faith, said this:
In the present
reads "Behold the
Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!" The same
change is made several other places in I Nephi, notably 11:18, 30;
These are deliberate and intentional changes in a translation that was
supposed to already be perfect.
"…and many generations
after the Messiah shall be manifested in the body…" The words
be" are added, and "hath," and "himself" are deleted.
I Nephi 20:1
"…or out of
the waters of baptism"
is not found in the 1830 edition, but has been added in the present
Promulgation of the Mormon doctrine on baptism appears to be the motive
Alma 29:10 The 1830 edition reads, "for I know that he granteth unto men according to their desire, whether it be unto death or unto life; yea, I know that he alloteth unto men, yea, decreeth them decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills..."
Here then, is an
which has been deleted from the original translation. An imperfection
a perfect translation?
Alma 46:19 The 1830 edition reads: "And when Moroni had said these words, he went forth among the people, waving the rent of his garment in the air, that all might see the writing which he had wrote upon the rent…"
sentence has been
changed to read: "…waving the rent part of his garment in the air, that
all might see the writing which he had written upon the rent part…"
I Nephi 11:18
edition reads: "Behold,
the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of
the flesh." This unfortunate allusion to Roman Catholic doctrine was
to read "Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of the
of God, after the manner of the flesh."
Alma 56:10 The 1830 edition reads: "…his army had been reduced by the Lamanites because of the numerority of their forces…"
The underlined phrase has been deleted from the present edition again for obvious reasons.
THE ARCHEOLOGY OF THE BOOK OF MORMON
Mormons claim that the Book of Mormon in an accurate record of not only the origin of the American Indian, but also of their culture. As we shall see, eminent institutions of learning disagree that this is the case.
addressed to the
pastor of the Hillcrest Methodist Church in Fredericksburg, Virginia,
ardent student of Mormonism and its claims. It is from the Department
Anthropology at Colombia University in New York City.
Pardon my delay in answering your letter of January 14, 1957. The question which you ask concerning the Book of Mormon in one that comes up quite frequently... However...I may say that I do not believe that there is a single thing of value concerning the prehistory of the American Indian in the BOOK of MORMON and I believe that the great majority of American archaeologists would agree with me. The book is untrue Biblically, historically, and scientifically.
Nm. Duncan Strong
With respect to some of the questions which you have raised pertaining to the story in the Book of Mormon relating to aboriginal occupation in the New World, I may say that thus far no iron, steel, brass, gold and silver coins, metal swords, breast-plates, arm shields, armor, horses and chariots, or silk have ever been found in pre-colonial archeological sites.
It is not until after the conquest of the New World by Europeans that material in those categories appear in association with aboriginal artifacts. As a matter of fact, there are not many such objects occurring in historical sites. Furthermore, cattle, sheep, swine, horses and asses, such as we know them, were introduced in the Americas by Europeans in post-Columbian times. No actual elephants have been found in any archeological site.
…I do not know any case where an archeological site has been identified with any of the names of the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon… It is possible that some of the anthropologists at Brigham Young University (Mormon) who have done some work in the Maya area may have attempted such a correlation, but if so I have not seen it reported. None of the main workers in the field have made any reference to the possibility of one of the well-known ruins being those of a city mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
(Letters from Smithsonian Institution as recorded in, "The Book of Mormon Examined" by Arthur Budvarson, Utah Christian Tract Society, 1959, p. 35, 36)
PLAGIARISMS OF THE KING JAMES VERSION
Those who have made a careful survey of the Book of Mormon estimate that at least 25,000 words from the King James Version of 1611 have been employed in its writing. In fact, there are many verbatim quotations of considerable length.
Now the question is, "Why would a book translated in 1830, be translated into the form of English spoken in 1611?"
2. 11 Nephi 14 is a parody upon Isaiah 4, and II Nephi 12 compared with Isaiah 2 reveals that "Joseph Smith made free use of his Bible to supplement the alleged revelation of the golden plates." (Ibid, pp. 51, 52)
THE REFORMED EGYPTIAN LANGUAGE
The text of our Bible in supported by over 4,500 Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts. When a translation is prepared, these manuscripts can be compared with one another, resulting in a high degree of accuracy.
When we consider the Book of Mormon however, it is quite a different story. This book was supposed to have been originally written in the "Reformed Egyptian tongue" a language they cannot prove over existed! No literature or ancient writing of any kind exists in this language and there are certainly no manuscripts of the Book of Mormon available in this language.
Examples of the Reformed Egyptian language ware alleged to have been taken to a professor Charles Anthon of New York for examination. In the Pearl Of Great Price (another source of Mormon doctrine) Anthon is supposed to have said (in Smith’s words), "…that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian." (Pearl Of Great Price, chap.2 vss. 62, 63, 64).
letter to E. D. Howe
in 1834, said:
Upon examining the paper in question, I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a trick, perhaps a hoax! ... This paper was in fact a singular scrawl. It consisted of crooked characters disposed in columns and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns...
I am thus
particular as to
the contents of
the paper, inasmuch as I have frequently conversed with my friends on
subject, since the Mormonite excitement began, and well remember that
paper contained anything else by "Egyptian Hieroglyphics."
the "translation" was correct when the Book of Mormon declares
no one on earth knew the language? If Prof. Anthon understood the
on the "plates" and knew the ones he saw had been correctly translated
why did Joseph Smith have to have a "prepared means" of translation?
not let Anthon do the work?
One thing the Bible expressly forbids is adding to the body of Revelation (Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:6; Revelation 22:19)