Replies

John this could be said of the supposed “book of mormon” Have any experts ever examined the original ???

Many experts have studied the two original manuscripts of the Book of Mormon, and have established who were the scribes for each of the manuscripts. There is the dictated manuscript, which survives in chunks and fragments, and is owned by the LDS. And there is the printer's manuscript, which is almost fully intact, and is owned by Community of Christ.

There are many minor differences in the two manuscripts, and all those differences have been studied and commented on. Scholars have found that the dictated manuscripts has Hebraisms that sound strange in English, such as double negatives becoming a stronger no instead of canceling each other out, as in English.

As for the original metal plates, when the translation was completed, an angel took them, presumably back to Hill Cumorah in Southern Mexico, where the other plates are hidden until the time comes when God allows them to be discovered. God told the three witnesses of the Book of Mormon that its translation was true. So when the Book of Mormon plates are rediscovered, we will know how to translate reformed Egyptian. Therefore, the remainder of the plates written in reformed Egyptian can be translated without any need for a seer. The Brass Plates are written in the Egyptian that Moses was proficient in, so no seer is needed to translate those either. In other words, when the plates are made available for study, they can be translated and published fairly quickly.

Many experts have studied the two original manuscripts of the Book of Mormon, and have established who were the scribes for each of the manuscripts.

And yet this 'inspired' by the 'power of God' document has had over 3000 changes made since that time - all without the plates to refer back too. Imagine that.

Scholars have found that the dictated manuscripts has Hebraisms that sound strange in English, such as double negatives becoming a stronger no instead of canceling each other out, as in English.

When one copies copious amounts of the book from the bible this ceases to be amazing, but further evidence of plagerism.

As for the original metal plates, when the translation was completed, an angel took them, presumably back to Hill Cumorah in Southern Mexico, . . .

As attested by an 'archeologist' who is regularly cited by ufologists - need on say more.

The Brass Plates are written in the Egyptian that Moses was proficient in, so no seer is needed to translate those either. In other words, when the plates are made available for study, they can be translated and published fairly quickly.

You mean just like the kinderhook plates?

Don’t you find it at all peculiar;

That outside of the claims in the BoM, that no other evidence whatsoever exists of this purported “Reformed Egyptian”?

That for a civilization supposedly quite literate as the BoM claims, that no evidence has ever been found of any of their writings? Even mundane writings that countless other civilizations left behind?

That many respected and highly skilled linguists have found absolutely no record of any kind, either in the Old World, or the New World, of “reformed Egyptian” nor do they have any idea what it is?

Why would there be a need for reformed Egyptian, if the BoM peoples were proficient in Egyptian?

What purpose is served in creating a whole new language out of whole cloth?

That, although God purportedly approved the translations that JS was making, there were still over 4,000 errors?

However minor, this indicates a flawed, imperfect god. One who permitted errors during a translation he oversaw.

Not the perfect God of the Bible.

So when the Book of Mormon plates are rediscovered, we will know how to translate reformed Egyptian.

Deconstructing Linus: Portrait of a True Believing Pumpkinist as a Young Man

What does the Great Pumpkin offer Linus? Why does Linus spend every Halloween in the pumpkin patch, waiting for the Great Pumpkin to appear? Is it about the toys?

"Each year on Halloween night, the Great Pumpkin rises out of the pumpkin patch that he thinks is the most sincere and flies through the air with his pack of toys for all the good little children in the world."

No. This is about sincerity, a subjective standard by any definition.

I wonder if Linus blames himself every year for not picking the most sincere pumpkin patch for his vigil?

I wonder if other Great Pumpkinists castigate Linus by asserting if he were more in tune with the Spirit of the Great Pumpkin, if he were more prayerful, if he read the Holy Writ of the Great Pumpkin with a greater sincerity, that he could indeed rise to the challenge and, via the Spirit, be lead to choose the most sincere pumpkin patch?

I wonder how many years Linus will feel guilty for this failure and blame himself for receiving no answer no matter how sincere he believes himself to be?

I wonder if Linus ever gets frustrated because there is no objective way to measure sincerity? And if he realizes there is no objective standard for such a thing, I wonder if it ever creeps into his mind that his annual mission is nothing more than mindless busywork?

I wonder, does Linus ever has doubts?

For the time being, however, Linus will put aside his doubts and, perhaps as a means of proving his sincerity, begins to proselyte among his friends for converts. Most shrug him off. But Sally, who has a crush on him, believes Linus and agrees to spend Halloween in Linus’ Pumpkin Patch.

Linus then explains that by using positive language and positive thinking, they may be able to attract the Great Pumpkin to their Patch. He also cautions Sally that negative language and negative thinking will cause the Great Pumpkin to pass them by.

There is no room for doubt when one is a Great Pumpkinist. One should never say if the Great Pumpkin comes but always when the Great Pumpkin comes. "One little slip like that, can cause the Great Pumpkin to pass you by!" It’s hard to imagine a benevolent icon such as the Great Pumpkin punishing TBPs (True Believing Pumkinists) for such a minor infraction, but there you have it.

Sally: The Birth of an Ex-Pumpkinist

Because Sally loves her “sweet baboo” Linus, she sets aside her own Halloween plans of trick-or-treating and a Halloween party in order to spend the evening in the Pumpkin Patch. She converts to Great Pumpkinism because she loves Linus. She respects his opinion. And she wants to make him happy and be supportive. And besides, if it’s really true, WOW! Wouldn’t that be fantastic?

But in the end, the only Being that shows up in the Pumpkin Patch is Snoopy. Linus, believing Snoopy to be the Great Pumpkin, swoons into an ecstatic faint, happy in the knowledge that he has finally deciphered the Great Pumpkin’s standard for sincerity. But, alas, it is a misplaced hope, and when Linus regains consciousness, there is not only no Great Pumpkin there to reward him, there is one upset little girl.

"I was robbed! I spent the whole night waiting for the Great Pumpkin when I could have been out for tricks or treats! Halloween is over and I missed it! You blockhead! You kept me up all night waiting for the Great Pumpkin and all that came was a beagle!"

"I didn't get a chance to go out for tricks or treats! And it was all your fault! I'll sue! What a fool I was. And I could have had candy apples and gum! And cookies and money and all sorts of things! But no, I had to listen to you! You blockhead. What a fool I was. Trick or treats come only once a year. And I missed it by sitting in a pumpkin patch with a blockhead. You owe me restitution!"

Luckily for Sally, she only missed one Halloween. And though she is demanding restitution, because her participation was voluntary, she will never receive said restitution. She’ll simply have to accept the experience as one of life’s absurdities and move on.

However, one can hope that this experience has made Sally a more skeptical person, so that the next time she is presented with such fantastic claims, she’ll perhaps be inclined to do her research before committing any time, money or emotion.

After all, fantastic claims should be supported by fantastic evidence, right?

The question now becomes, has this experience made Linus a skeptic? After yet again not having his Pumpkin Patch recognized as sincere and after having endangered his friendship with Sally, will he continue to believe?

In spite of a complete and utter lack of evidence pointing to the existence of the Great Pumpkin, and a complete and utter lack of the Great Pumpkin’s Promise ever having been fulfilled, Linus is a True Believing Pumpkinist to the core. To even admit the possibility that he may be wrong would be to negate all those years of hard work and sincere belief. Linus simply cannot turn his back on his belief.

So if Linus doesn't become an ex-Pumpkinist, what is his strategy? Well, he’s going to keep on trying, isn't he?

"What do you mean, 'stupid'? Just wait until next year. I'll find a pumpkin patch, and I'll sit in that pumpkin patch and it'll be a sincere pumpkin patch, and the Great Pumpkin will come! Just you wait and see! I'll sit in that pumpkin patch, and I'll see the Great Pumpkin. Just wait until next year!"

So when the Book of Mormon plates are rediscovered, we will know how to translate reformed Egyptian.

What???

Have you no CLUE as to just HOW the 'PLATES' were 'translated???

...with his face stuck in a hat.

"Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes than he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters. Then he would tell the writer and he would write it. Then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on. But if it was not Spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous. Thus was the hol [whole] translated."

---Joseph Knight's journal.

"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."
(History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols.

(Independence, Missouri: Herald House,1951),

"Last Testimony of Sister Emma [Smith Bidamon]," 3:356.

"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. . . . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation."
---(David Whitmer,

as published in the "Kansas City Journal," June 5, 1881,

and reprinted in the RLDS "Journal of History", vol. 8, (1910), pp. 299-300.

In an 1885 interview, Zenas H. Gurley, then the editor of the RLDS Saints Herald, asked Whitmer if Joseph had used his "Peep stone" to do the translation. Whitmer replied:

"... he used a stone called a "Seers stone," the "Interpreters" having been taken away from him because of transgression. The "Interpreters" were taken from Joseph after he allowed Martin Harris to carry away the 116 pages of Ms [manuscript] of the Book of Mormon as a punishment, but he was allowed to go on and translate by use of a "Seers stone" which he had, and which he placed in a hat into which he buried his face, stating to me and others that the original character appeared upon parchment and under it the translation in English."

"Martin Harris related an incident that occurred during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone, Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say 'Written,' and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."
(Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses,"

reprinted from Deseret News, 30 Nov. 1881

in Millennial Star, 44 (6 Feb. 1882): 86-87.)

In 1879, Michael Morse, Emma Smith's brother-in-law, stated:

"When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon [I] had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down."
(W.W. Blair interview with Michael Morse,

Saints Herald, vol. 26, no. 12

June 15, 1879, pp. 190-91.)

Joseph Smith's brother William also testified to the "face in the hat" version:

"The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God"

("A New Witness for Christ in America,"

Francis W. Kirkham, 2:417.)

"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret was the same manner as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, while the book of plates were at the same time hid in the woods."

---Isaac Hale (Emma Smith's father's) affidavit, 1834.

The "Caractors" are the only tangible evidence in existence related to Smith's story. No gold plates, no brass plates, no peep stones, no Urim and Thummim... only these "Caractors," not a single one of which is in the purported languages.

Smith's translation of the Caractors. According to Martin Harris (Joseph Smith - History, 1:64), "I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated,* and he said they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters."

Speak right up now in all truthfulness. Isn't it revealing how Smith started out making a stab at creating believable "caractors" but quckly gave up and produced nothing but squiggles, ending up wih a series of nothing more than crude little scribbles? Yet Professor Anthon supposedly translated them!

*Harris must have had two or three pieces of paper with him—one with characters and a translation of them (on the same paper or a separate one) and one with untranslated characters—quite likely the "Caractors." Some Mormon "scholars" have gone out on a limb, sawed it off, and knocked themselves out trying to translate from these true Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic characters a segment that would correspond with a verse from 1 Nephi.

Modern-day experts in Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic. In 1829, any knowledge of these languages possessed by U.S. scholars would have been rudimentary at best. Expertise in them has vastly improved since then. So go ahead, do it. Get any modern expert in these languages to identify which of these "Caractors" are Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac and Arabic. Better still, accept the claim of Mormon apologists that Anthon did indeed so testify and that his appraisal of the Caractors was correct. (Op. cit, pp. 73-75)

Save your money! Samples of Assyriac/Aramaic and Arabic writing:

What say you? Which of Smith's "Caractors" resemble the Assyriac and Arabic ones? No need to pay experts for their analysis. A child could accurately check this out. These writing systems have remained constant for well over 3000 years.