The Truth about Mormons

[Truthspeaker]

evidence from WHOM? some mormons out looking to validate their faith?


ooooook.

Case in Point; You didn't even look at the links posted to see how many of your precious "non-mormon" sources were cited. Pull the bong out of wherever you are putting it and pay attention.

bait and switch now, eh? I guess it would have to suck to require such deviousness in order to validate your faith.





But, I guess what can one expect from a dogma based on the word of a conman...

????????????What does......that.....mean?

 

[Truthspeaker]

PROVEN the likelihood !!!!

Boy oh boy!!! is that is that a reach!!

PROVEN by a maybe

Like I said before: All the so called evidence the Mormon's claim for their fable, is always followed by; maybe, could be, leads to the conclusion, possible, plausible, might be, etc.

I swear Sun, you oughta do some research yourself before squawking. You fell right into my trap. Read the non-Mormon sources and weep:

POSSIBLE PRE-COLUMBIAN TRANS-ATLANTIC VOYAGES TO MESOAMERICA: A SEARCH OF SOME NEW DATA FOR AN OLD CONTROVERSY

Michael D. Coe(The world's foremost Meso-American scholar) in his 6th edition of The Maya:"Boats must have been available to the people of Eurasia... "The Siberian Land Bridge Only" theory is no longer acceptable."

Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts. Who is Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts? What is Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts? Where is Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts? Definition of Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts. Meaning of Pre-Columbi

Sorry, John L. Sorenson is one Mormon source among the 12 cited. I guess they think he's pretty smart since they listed him first.

1) Note: This project is currently under consideration for funding from several foundations and private sponsors.




2) As was the case in the early 19th century, there are writers today who claim that Old World civilizations such as those of Israel, Egypt, Irish monks (as hinted by the legend of St Brendan), Ancient Rome, Islamic West Africa, Sumeria, the Temple Knights, etc had landed on the Pre-Columbian Americas. (Trans-Pacific influences have also been proclaimed, as have contacts with Atlantis and other supposed "lost continents"; in the 20th century extra-terrestrial civilizations have been added to the long list of the suggested "real" builders of the ancient monuments of the Americas.) Such writings are considered at least very dubious if not simply contrary to known facts by mainstream historians and archeologists.







dude.. whatsa matter? Are you having trouble finding sources that are not mormons?

Read the links.

 

[Truthspeaker]

If he has to find scholarly non-mormon sources to vindicate his claims, he's going to be quiet a long damn time.

I've already shown over 12. You're disbelievin eyes just can't see them. Either way it doesn't matter if I have 20,000 non-mormon sources or zero. The evidence causes plausiblity that no scientist can argue away.



Where are the scientists arguments against it? They don't even pay attention because they know better. The less they know about the book of Mormon the better they can save face with their little Smithsonian dogmas.

Still waitin for some scientific evidence against the Book of Mormon claims. I'll be waitin to shut those down as soon as you bring em

 

[Shogun]

I swear Sun, you oughta do some research yourself before squawking. You fell right into my trap. Read the non-Mormon sources and weep:

POSSIBLE PRE-COLUMBIAN TRANS-ATLANTIC VOYAGES TO MESOAMERICA: A SEARCH OF SOME NEW DATA FOR AN OLD CONTROVERSY

Michael D. Coe(The world's foremost Meso-American scholar) in his 6th edition of The Maya:"Boats must have been available to the people of Eurasia... "The Siberian Land Bridge Only" theory is no longer acceptable."

Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts. Who is Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts? What is Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts? Where is Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts? Definition of Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts. Meaning of Pre-Columbi

Sorry, John L. Sorenson is one Mormon source among the 12 cited. I guess they think he's pretty smart since they listed him first.

1) Note: This project is currently under consideration for funding from several foundations and private sponsors.




2) As was the case in the early 19th century, there are writers today who claim that Old World civilizations such as those of Israel, Egypt, Irish monks (as hinted by the legend of St Brendan), Ancient Rome, Islamic West Africa, Sumeria, the Temple Knights, etc had landed on the Pre-Columbian Americas. (Trans-Pacific influences have also been proclaimed, as have contacts with Atlantis and other supposed "lost continents"; in the 20th century extra-terrestrial civilizations have been added to the long list of the suggested "real" builders of the ancient monuments of the Americas.) Such writings are considered at least very dubious if not simply contrary to known facts by mainstream historians and archeologists.







dude.. whatsa matter? Are you having trouble finding sources that are not mormons?

Read the links.

I did. and I posted exactly what makes them a punchline to the joke of your trouble with evidence.

 

[Godboy]

I've already shown over 12. You're disbelievin eyes just can't see them. Either way it doesn't matter if I have 20,000 non-mormon sources or zero. The evidence causes plausiblity that no scientist can argue away.

Then why do they argue it away, if they cant? If you had irrefutable proof that the Mormon religion was the one true religion, then why isnt EVERYONE a mormon? The fact is, you dont have proof, and its dishonest when you pretend that you do.

 

[Shogun]

just to reiterate...

Such writings are considered at least very dubious if not simply contrary to known facts by mainstream historians and archaeologists.

 

[Sky Dancer]

If he has to find scholarly non-mormon sources to vindicate his claims, he's going to be quiet a long damn time.

I've already shown over 12. You're disbelievin eyes just can't see them. Either way it doesn't matter if I have 20,000 non-mormon sources or zero. The evidence causes plausiblity that no scientist can argue away.



Where are the scientists arguments against it? They don't even pay attention because they know better. The less they know about the book of Mormon the better they can save face with their little Smithsonian dogmas.

Still waitin for some scientific evidence against the Book of Mormon claims. I'll be waitin to shut those down as soon as you bring em

How does the Book of Mormon relate to the Bible? Is the Bible used in LDS?

 

[Truthspeaker]

I've already shown over 12. You're disbelievin eyes just can't see them. Either way it doesn't matter if I have 20,000 non-mormon sources or zero. The evidence causes plausiblity that no scientist can argue away.

Then why do they argue it away, if they cant? If you had irrefutable proof that the Mormon religion was the one true religion, then why isnt EVERYONE a mormon? The fact is, you dont have proof, and its dishonest when you pretend that you do.

You're not listening. I never claimed to prove my religion is the one true religion. I was talking about the plausiblity of Book of Mormon events taking place. Not irrefutable proof.


Why can't people listen?

 

[Truthspeaker]

just to reiterate...

Such writings are considered at least very dubious if not simply contrary to known facts by mainstream historians and archaeologists.

Of course, but that is the emptiest statement I ever heard. Where is the backup. It is another dogmatic response.
It's like.... all they can do is dismiss it as not up for discussion. Where is the substance? Their arguments are simply: "There was no pre-Columbian voyages to the Americas." as if the matter were closed and there is no evidence or proof they cite to back it up.

Scientists don't agree on the subject so it's hardly been decided. Science is not authoritative on the basis that it agrees with your pre-conceived notions.

All I ever said is that my scientific view cannot be dismissed as invalid until someone proves it beyond any doubt. You guys think I am trying to prove it but I am only proving possibility. Pay attention people.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I've already shown over 12. You're disbelievin eyes just can't see them. Either way it doesn't matter if I have 20,000 non-mormon sources or zero. The evidence causes plausiblity that no scientist can argue away.

Then why do they argue it away, if they cant? If you had irrefutable proof that the Mormon religion was the one true religion, then why isnt EVERYONE a mormon? The fact is, you dont have proof, and its dishonest when you pretend that you do.

You're not listening. I never claimed to prove my religion is the one true religion. I was talking about the plausiblity of Book of Mormon events taking place. Not irrefutable proof.


Why can't people listen?

That's a clear statement. My question is what is the relationship (if any) between the Book of Mormon and the Bible?

 

[Truthspeaker]

If he has to find scholarly non-mormon sources to vindicate his claims, he's going to be quiet a long damn time.

I've already shown over 12. You're disbelievin eyes just can't see them. Either way it doesn't matter if I have 20,000 non-mormon sources or zero. The evidence causes plausiblity that no scientist can argue away.



Where are the scientists arguments against it? They don't even pay attention because they know better. The less they know about the book of Mormon the better they can save face with their little Smithsonian dogmas.

Still waitin for some scientific evidence against the Book of Mormon claims. I'll be waitin to shut those down as soon as you bring em

How does the Book of Mormon relate to the Bible? Is the Bible used in LDS?

Thanks for the sanity

The Book of Mormon does relate closely to the Bible. It is similar in that they are both collections of writings of prophets and apostles. The meat of the Bible takes place in the fertile crescent area and the meat of the Book of Mormon takes place in Meso America.

They both teach that Jesus is the saviour of the world and they both have poetry, symbolism, allegories and tales of war; all designed to teach spiritual lessons. We use both.

 

[Sky Dancer]

There are many things I admire about LDS and Mormons. They have made an incredible contribution to the genealogy field. They create beauty, art and music. They live wholesome lives. They are generally interested in conversing with others who are different from them and they value education.
Great basketball team.

Family is central to their values. Those are all good things. And they seem very attractive looking people as well--except for a few of the elders and statesmen--who kind of creep me out.

Utah is a beautiful state and they are gracious to travelers.

 

[Shogun]

just to reiterate...

Such writings are considered at least very dubious if not simply contrary to known facts by mainstream historians and archaeologists.

Of course, but that is the emptiest statement I ever heard. Where is the backup. It is another dogmatic response.
It's like.... all they can do is dismiss it as not up for discussion. Where is the substance? Their arguments are simply: "There was no pre-Columbian voyages to the Americas." as if the matter were closed and there is no evidence or proof they cite to back it up.

Scientists don't agree on the subject so it's hardly been decided. Science is not authoritative on the basis that it agrees with your pre-conceived notions.

All I ever said is that my scientific view cannot be dismissed as invalid until someone proves it beyond any doubt. You guys think I am trying to prove it but I am only proving possibility. Pay attention people.

careful, you are exposing your ignorance regarding the scientific method. It is not MY job to validate YOUR assumptions. I don't have to disprove every nutter idea that you have while trying to calidate your religion. If you've got evidence then post it. If not, well, we know why you rail against the non-mormon scientific community and totally fail to offer anything that is not saturated in mormonism, dont we?

 

[Eightball]

Of all the sources that Joseph Smith used to construct the Book of Mormon, none is more apparent than the King James Bible. Mormons tend to be unaware of just how much the Book of Mormon owes to the Bible.

Smith's use of the Bible occurs in a number of different ways - it shows up in apparently random quotes peppered throughout the Book of Mormon; it also shows up as a narrative source in a number of different passages. In very many cases, Smith quotes the New Testament long before it was written. In a number of cases, Smith quotes a New Testament paraphrase of an Old Testament verse. He recycles quotes over and over again. He uses archaic King James vocabulary in a manner that shows he was not familiar with the true meaning of the words. He quotes King James translation errors again and again. In short, there can be very little doubt that the King James Version inspired large sections of the Book of Mormon.

Interesting how we ended up with 1611 KJV vernacular in an 1830's BOM.

To the ardent follower of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon is the surest proof of his prophetic office. It is the one undeniable sign of his divinely given gifts of translation. To the skeptic, the Book of Mormon is an interesting example of early American frontier fiction, both quaint and pretentious, a living monument to human greed and gullibility. An analysis of the Book is useful, not because it tells us anything at all about ancient America, but rather for the insights that it gives us into the human psyche, into the mind of both the con artist and his mark.

It is evident that Joseph Smith used a number of sources in his monumental work. One of these was his own immediate environment, specifically the intense speculation about the origin of the Native Americans that fired the collective imagination of early nineteenth century New England. But, by far the most fruitful source of both ideas and prose in the Book of Mormon is the King James Bible.

It is an undeniable fact that the Book of Mormon quotes the Bible. This fact is acknowledged in the Book itself, in such phrases as '...now I, Nephi, write more of the words of Isaiah, for my soul delighteth in his words.' (II Nephi 11:2). The Book of Mormon contains extensive quotes from Isaiah - some twenty-two chapters of the prophet are found in the Book, in many cases quoted verbatim from the King James Version.

What is less well known is that the Book of Mormon makes a large number of unacknowledged Biblical quotes. These quotes appear as part and parcel of the narrative of the Book, and are quoted by different authors at different times. It is these quotes that are of interest, because they reveal something about the origin of the Book of Mormon.

Of particular interest are quotes that appear long before their sources were written. These include several hundred New Testament quotes and allusions, as well as one Old Testament anachronism. Malachi 4:1-2 is quoted or alluded to several times in First and Second Nephi. (See I Nephi 22:15 and II Nephi 26:4, for example). The problem is that Lehi and his family supposedly left Jerusalem before the Babylonian conquest - Malachi, however, was a post-exilic prophet.

A few examples of anachronistic New Testament quotes would be Matthew 3:10 quoted in Alma 5:52, I Corinthians 15:53 quoted in Mosiah 16:10 and Romans 8:6 in II Nephi 9:39.

Fatigue is a literary phenomenon that sometimes occurs when one author is heavily dependent on another. It produces small errors of continuity and detail, which result from the latter author omitting structural details while modifying the source.

As an example, consider the story of the healing of the paralytic in Luke 5. The gospel records that there were so many people in the house, that the friends of the patient were forced to let him down through the roof.

Luke 5:19 And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in because of the multitude, they went upon the housetop, and let him down through the tiling with his couch into the midst before Jesus.

The problem is that Luke has failed to mention that Jesus is in a house.

Luke 5:17 And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was present to heal them.

What has happened here is that the author of Luke, in using Mark 2 for his source, has forgotten that he did not set the story in a house, creating a minor aberration in the flow of the narrative when he finds that he has need of a housetop.[5]

Can we find similar examples of fatigue in the Book of Mormon? There are at least two candidates.

As noted in the previous section, Alma 18 and 19 contains a story which is very similar to the resurrection of Lazarus as recorded in John 11. The most obvious difference is the fact that whereas Lazarus had died, and had been dead for some time, King Lamoni was in a deep sleep (possibly comatose). Strangely enough, however, after informing his wife that the King is simply asleep, the prophet Ammon goes on to claim that he "...shall rise again" (19:8). This seems a rather curious phrase to use of someone who was merely asleep, especially when we consider that both times the phrase is used elsewhere in the Book of Mormon (Alma 33:22 and Helaman 14:20), it refers to a resurrection from the dead.

Could it be that in copying his source (the gospel of John), Smith used a phrase that made sense in John's narrative ("...Thy brother shall rise again..." in John 11:23), but not in the Book of Mormon story?

A second example concerns the parable of the Vineyard, as recorded in Jacob 5. This is a long parable which casts the nation Israel in the metaphorical role of an Olive tree in a vineyard.

Jacob 5:3 For behold, thus saith the Lord, I will liken thee, O house of Israel, like unto a tame olive-tree, which a man took and nourished in his vineyard; and it grew, and waxed old, and began to decay.

The parable appears to be drawn from two biblical sources - the Song of the Vineyard in Isaiah 5, and Paul's discussion of the relation of the Gentiles to the Jews in Romans 11.[6] The problem for the author of the Book of Mormon is that Isaiah and Paul used slightly different metaphors - Isaiah that of a vineyard, and Paul an Olive tree. It is thus quite significant that halfway through the parable, Zenos appears to forget that he is using an Olive tree as his metaphor, and begins to use the whole vineyard as his focus.

Jacob 5:41 And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard wept, and said unto the servant: What could I have done more for my vineyard?

Significantly, the break appears at the same point that the Book of Mormon quotes a passage from Isaiah:

Isaiah 5:4 What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?

From this point on, the prophet Zenos refers exclusively to the "fruit of the vineyard", apparently forgetting that vineyards yield grapes, not olives.
*******
Plagarism, plagarism, plagarism..........and very blatent plagarist.

When a plagarist copies verbatim translation errors that are unique to his source that he's copying...........He's caught "Dead To Rights".........With his hands in the cookie jar.

 

[Truthspeaker]

There are many things I admire about LDS and Mormons. They have made an incredible contribution to the genealogy field. They create beauty, art and music. They live wholesome lives. Thye are generally interested in conversing with others who are different from them and they value education.

Family is central to their values. Those are all good things. And they seem very attractive looking people as well--except for a few of the elders and statesmen--who kind of creep me out.

Which ones creep you out? Maybe it's just cuz they're in their 70's and 80's.

 

[Truthspeaker]

just to reiterate...

Such writings are considered at least very dubious if not simply contrary to known facts by mainstream historians and archaeologists.

Of course, but that is the emptiest statement I ever heard. Where is the backup. It is another dogmatic response.
It's like.... all they can do is dismiss it as not up for discussion. Where is the substance? Their arguments are simply: "There was no pre-Columbian voyages to the Americas." as if the matter were closed and there is no evidence or proof they cite to back it up.

Scientists don't agree on the subject so it's hardly been decided. Science is not authoritative on the basis that it agrees with your pre-conceived notions.

All I ever said is that my scientific view cannot be dismissed as invalid until someone proves it beyond any doubt. You guys think I am trying to prove it but I am only proving possibility. Pay attention people.

careful, you are exposing your ignorance regarding the scientific method. It is not MY job to validate YOUR assumptions. I don't have to disprove every nutter idea that you have while trying to calidate your religion. If you've got evidence then post it. If not, well, we know why you rail against the non-mormon scientific community and totally fail to offer anything that is not saturated in mormonism, dont we?

When you finally read my sources, You will shut your mouth. And it's only my duty to show that it's possible, not prove it's true. You are trying to prove me wrong, which is NOT possible.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Of all the sources that Joseph Smith used to construct the Book of Mormon, none is more apparent than the King James Bible. Mormons tend to be unaware of just how much the Book of Mormon owes to the Bible.

Smith's use of the Bible occurs in a number of different ways - it shows up in apparently random quotes peppered throughout the Book of Mormon; it also shows up as a narrative source in a number of different passages. In very many cases, Smith quotes the New Testament long before it was written. In a number of cases, Smith quotes a New Testament paraphrase of an Old Testament verse. He recycles quotes over and over again. He uses archaic King James vocabulary in a manner that shows he was not familiar with the true meaning of the words. He quotes King James translation errors again and again. In short, there can be very little doubt that the King James Version inspired large sections of the Book of Mormon.

Interesting how we ended up with 1611 KJV vernacular in an 1830's BOM.

To the ardent follower of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon is the surest proof of his prophetic office. It is the one undeniable sign of his divinely given gifts of translation. To the skeptic, the Book of Mormon is an interesting example of early American frontier fiction, both quaint and pretentious, a living monument to human greed and gullibility. An analysis of the Book is useful, not because it tells us anything at all about ancient America, but rather for the insights that it gives us into the human psyche, into the mind of both the con artist and his mark.

It is evident that Joseph Smith used a number of sources in his monumental work. One of these was his own immediate environment, specifically the intense speculation about the origin of the Native Americans that fired the collective imagination of early nineteenth century New England. But, by far the most fruitful source of both ideas and prose in the Book of Mormon is the King James Bible.

It is an undeniable fact that the Book of Mormon quotes the Bible. This fact is acknowledged in the Book itself, in such phrases as '...now I, Nephi, write more of the words of Isaiah, for my soul delighteth in his words.' (II Nephi 11:2). The Book of Mormon contains extensive quotes from Isaiah - some twenty-two chapters of the prophet are found in the Book, in many cases quoted verbatim from the King James Version.

What is less well known is that the Book of Mormon makes a large number of unacknowledged Biblical quotes. These quotes appear as part and parcel of the narrative of the Book, and are quoted by different authors at different times. It is these quotes that are of interest, because they reveal something about the origin of the Book of Mormon.

Of particular interest are quotes that appear long before their sources were written. These include several hundred New Testament quotes and allusions, as well as one Old Testament anachronism. Malachi 4:1-2 is quoted or alluded to several times in First and Second Nephi. (See I Nephi 22:15 and II Nephi 26:4, for example). The problem is that Lehi and his family supposedly left Jerusalem before the Babylonian conquest - Malachi, however, was a post-exilic prophet.

A few examples of anachronistic New Testament quotes would be Matthew 3:10 quoted in Alma 5:52, I Corinthians 15:53 quoted in Mosiah 16:10 and Romans 8:6 in II Nephi 9:39.

Fatigue is a literary phenomenon that sometimes occurs when one author is heavily dependent on another. It produces small errors of continuity and detail, which result from the latter author omitting structural details while modifying the source.

As an example, consider the story of the healing of the paralytic in Luke 5. The gospel records that there were so many people in the house, that the friends of the patient were forced to let him down through the roof.

Luke 5:19 And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in because of the multitude, they went upon the housetop, and let him down through the tiling with his couch into the midst before Jesus.

The problem is that Luke has failed to mention that Jesus is in a house.

Luke 5:17 And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was present to heal them.

What has happened here is that the author of Luke, in using Mark 2 for his source, has forgotten that he did not set the story in a house, creating a minor aberration in the flow of the narrative when he finds that he has need of a housetop.[5]

Can we find similar examples of fatigue in the Book of Mormon? There are at least two candidates.

As noted in the previous section, Alma 18 and 19 contains a story which is very similar to the resurrection of Lazarus as recorded in John 11. The most obvious difference is the fact that whereas Lazarus had died, and had been dead for some time, King Lamoni was in a deep sleep (possibly comatose). Strangely enough, however, after informing his wife that the King is simply asleep, the prophet Ammon goes on to claim that he "...shall rise again" (19:8). This seems a rather curious phrase to use of someone who was merely asleep, especially when we consider that both times the phrase is used elsewhere in the Book of Mormon (Alma 33:22 and Helaman 14:20), it refers to a resurrection from the dead.

Could it be that in copying his source (the gospel of John), Smith used a phrase that made sense in John's narrative ("...Thy brother shall rise again..." in John 11:23), but not in the Book of Mormon story?

A second example concerns the parable of the Vineyard, as recorded in Jacob 5. This is a long parable which casts the nation Israel in the metaphorical role of an Olive tree in a vineyard.

Jacob 5:3 For behold, thus saith the Lord, I will liken thee, O house of Israel, like unto a tame olive-tree, which a man took and nourished in his vineyard; and it grew, and waxed old, and began to decay.

The parable appears to be drawn from two biblical sources - the Song of the Vineyard in Isaiah 5, and Paul's discussion of the relation of the Gentiles to the Jews in Romans 11.[6] The problem for the author of the Book of Mormon is that Isaiah and Paul used slightly different metaphors - Isaiah that of a vineyard, and Paul an Olive tree. It is thus quite significant that halfway through the parable, Zenos appears to forget that he is using an Olive tree as his metaphor, and begins to use the whole vineyard as his focus.

Jacob 5:41 And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard wept, and said unto the servant: What could I have done more for my vineyard?

Significantly, the break appears at the same point that the Book of Mormon quotes a passage from Isaiah:

Isaiah 5:4 What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?

From this point on, the prophet Zenos refers exclusively to the "fruit of the vineyard", apparently forgetting that vineyards yield grapes, not olives.
*******
Plagarism, plagarism, plagarism..........and very blatent plagarist.

When a plagarist copies verbatim translation errors that are unique to his source that he's copying...........He's caught "Dead To Rights".........With his hands in the cookie jar.

It has now been officially 32 times that I have shown you there is no plagiarism because he cited the source. You just don't get it. He didn't claim them to be his own words. Who would think they could get away with it. It was the most famous book in the whole country. Think dude.

 

[Avatar4321]

When you finally read my sources, You will shut your mouth. And it's only my duty to show that it's possible, not prove it's true. You are trying to prove me wrong, which is NOT possible.

I dont think its something they understand.

The whole thing about it is it shouldnt be possible. If Joseph was a con man it should be a slam dunk. But its not because he kept getting things right.

How many "coincidences" does he have to have before he is taken seriously?

 

[Eightball]

Of all the sources that Joseph Smith used to construct the Book of Mormon, none is more apparent than the King James Bible. Mormons tend to be unaware of just how much the Book of Mormon owes to the Bible.

Smith's use of the Bible occurs in a number of different ways - it shows up in apparently random quotes peppered throughout the Book of Mormon; it also shows up as a narrative source in a number of different passages. In very many cases, Smith quotes the New Testament long before it was written. In a number of cases, Smith quotes a New Testament paraphrase of an Old Testament verse. He recycles quotes over and over again. He uses archaic King James vocabulary in a manner that shows he was not familiar with the true meaning of the words. He quotes King James translation errors again and again. In short, there can be very little doubt that the King James Version inspired large sections of the Book of Mormon.

Interesting how we ended up with 1611 KJV vernacular in an 1830's BOM.

To the ardent follower of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon is the surest proof of his prophetic office. It is the one undeniable sign of his divinely given gifts of translation. To the skeptic, the Book of Mormon is an interesting example of early American frontier fiction, both quaint and pretentious, a living monument to human greed and gullibility. An analysis of the Book is useful, not because it tells us anything at all about ancient America, but rather for the insights that it gives us into the human psyche, into the mind of both the con artist and his mark.

It is evident that Joseph Smith used a number of sources in his monumental work. One of these was his own immediate environment, specifically the intense speculation about the origin of the Native Americans that fired the collective imagination of early nineteenth century New England. But, by far the most fruitful source of both ideas and prose in the Book of Mormon is the King James Bible.

It is an undeniable fact that the Book of Mormon quotes the Bible. This fact is acknowledged in the Book itself, in such phrases as '...now I, Nephi, write more of the words of Isaiah, for my soul delighteth in his words.' (II Nephi 11:2). The Book of Mormon contains extensive quotes from Isaiah - some twenty-two chapters of the prophet are found in the Book, in many cases quoted verbatim from the King James Version.

What is less well known is that the Book of Mormon makes a large number of unacknowledged Biblical quotes. These quotes appear as part and parcel of the narrative of the Book, and are quoted by different authors at different times. It is these quotes that are of interest, because they reveal something about the origin of the Book of Mormon.

Of particular interest are quotes that appear long before their sources were written. These include several hundred New Testament quotes and allusions, as well as one Old Testament anachronism. Malachi 4:1-2 is quoted or alluded to several times in First and Second Nephi. (See I Nephi 22:15 and II Nephi 26:4, for example). The problem is that Lehi and his family supposedly left Jerusalem before the Babylonian conquest - Malachi, however, was a post-exilic prophet.

A few examples of anachronistic New Testament quotes would be Matthew 3:10 quoted in Alma 5:52, I Corinthians 15:53 quoted in Mosiah 16:10 and Romans 8:6 in II Nephi 9:39.

Fatigue is a literary phenomenon that sometimes occurs when one author is heavily dependent on another. It produces small errors of continuity and detail, which result from the latter author omitting structural details while modifying the source.

As an example, consider the story of the healing of the paralytic in Luke 5. The gospel records that there were so many people in the house, that the friends of the patient were forced to let him down through the roof.

Luke 5:19 And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in because of the multitude, they went upon the housetop, and let him down through the tiling with his couch into the midst before Jesus.

The problem is that Luke has failed to mention that Jesus is in a house.

Luke 5:17 And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was present to heal them.

What has happened here is that the author of Luke, in using Mark 2 for his source, has forgotten that he did not set the story in a house, creating a minor aberration in the flow of the narrative when he finds that he has need of a housetop.[5]

Can we find similar examples of fatigue in the Book of Mormon? There are at least two candidates.

As noted in the previous section, Alma 18 and 19 contains a story which is very similar to the resurrection of Lazarus as recorded in John 11. The most obvious difference is the fact that whereas Lazarus had died, and had been dead for some time, King Lamoni was in a deep sleep (possibly comatose). Strangely enough, however, after informing his wife that the King is simply asleep, the prophet Ammon goes on to claim that he "...shall rise again" (19:8). This seems a rather curious phrase to use of someone who was merely asleep, especially when we consider that both times the phrase is used elsewhere in the Book of Mormon (Alma 33:22 and Helaman 14:20), it refers to a resurrection from the dead.

Could it be that in copying his source (the gospel of John), Smith used a phrase that made sense in John's narrative ("...Thy brother shall rise again..." in John 11:23), but not in the Book of Mormon story?

A second example concerns the parable of the Vineyard, as recorded in Jacob 5. This is a long parable which casts the nation Israel in the metaphorical role of an Olive tree in a vineyard.

Jacob 5:3 For behold, thus saith the Lord, I will liken thee, O house of Israel, like unto a tame olive-tree, which a man took and nourished in his vineyard; and it grew, and waxed old, and began to decay.

The parable appears to be drawn from two biblical sources - the Song of the Vineyard in Isaiah 5, and Paul's discussion of the relation of the Gentiles to the Jews in Romans 11.[6] The problem for the author of the Book of Mormon is that Isaiah and Paul used slightly different metaphors - Isaiah that of a vineyard, and Paul an Olive tree. It is thus quite significant that halfway through the parable, Zenos appears to forget that he is using an Olive tree as his metaphor, and begins to use the whole vineyard as his focus.

Jacob 5:41 And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard wept, and said unto the servant: What could I have done more for my vineyard?

Significantly, the break appears at the same point that the Book of Mormon quotes a passage from Isaiah:

Isaiah 5:4 What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?

From this point on, the prophet Zenos refers exclusively to the "fruit of the vineyard", apparently forgetting that vineyards yield grapes, not olives.
*******
Plagarism, plagarism, plagarism..........and very blatent plagarist.

When a plagarist copies verbatim translation errors that are unique to his source that he's copying...........He's caught "Dead To Rights".........With his hands in the cookie jar.

It has now been officially 32 times that I have shown you there is no plagiarism because he cited the source. You just don't get it. He didn't claim them to be his own words. Who would think they could get away with it. It was the most famous book in the whole country. Think dude.

So, copying a N.T. verse and chronicling it before it happened has been answered..........

Falling into the trap of copying verbatim the KJV translation errors right into the Book of Mormon is not suspect of plagarism?.........................

 

[Avatar4321]

So, copying a N.T. verse and chronicling it before it happened has been answered..........

Falling into the trap of copying verbatim the KJV translation errors right into the Book of Mormon is not suspect of plagarism?.........................

Let's say for the sake of argument that your claims are correct, ignoring the fact that Joseph corrected errors found in the KJV. Let's just say you are right just for argument sake. Let's say Joseph copied it verbatim.

It still wouldnt be plagarism. You cant plagarize something when:

1)You dont claim it as your own work
2)You cite the author.

This isnt a difficult concept to understand. You can't plagarize Isaiah when you introduce the passage by saying "Let's look to what Isaiah says".

I understand you have contempt for mormonism. And you know, as long as youre not chasing my family, friends, and I with pitch forks and torches, that's your complete right. You can misrepresent our faith as much as you want. That's your choice and it's between you and God.

But at least be honest about your claims. You cant plagarize sources you cite. You cant claim zero evidence simply because you arent satisfied with the evidence there actually is.

Its just dishonest. You dont have to believe a single claim of mormonism. But lets stop this bullcrap lying about your arguments. Because if you're correct, you shouldnt have to lie.