The Mormon Jesus quotes the Epistles of the New Testament before they were written?

[Cow Poke]

Interesting. I thought none of his co-conspirators saw the actual plates.

I don't know of anybody who actually claims to have seen the plates with their human eyes, besides Smith.

Source: Mormon historian Marvin S. Hill in “Brodie Revisited: A Reappraisal,” published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought

“What of the prophet's story about gold plates, and what about his witnesses? Given Brodie's assumptions, was there not deception here, if not collusion? Brodie maintains that the Prophet exercised some mysterious influence upon the witnesses which caused them to see the plates, thus making Joseph Smith once more the perpetrator of a religious fraud. The evidence is extremely contradictory in this area, but there is a possibility that the three witnesses saw the plates in vision only, for Stephen Burnett in a letter written in 1838, a few weeks after the event, described Martin Harris' testimony to this effect: ‘When I came to hear Martin Harris state in public that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver nor David . . . the last pedestal gave way, in my view our foundations.’”

© Copyright Original Source

[One Bad Pig]

Supposedly one of his co-conspirators, Oliver Cowdery, tried to translate at one point.

Interesting. I thought none of his co-conspirators saw the actual plates.

[Cow Poke]

Those rumors came from person/s who wouldn't have known how it actually worked and just imagined it to be that way from an out ward perspective (because Joseph would start on exactly where he left off). If that conception of the BoM translation were true, then Joseph would not have had to "study it out in his mind", but instead it would have been an entirely effortless process. Those actually attempting the translation process found that it was not effortless.

-7up

OK, so let's start there --- according to YOUR understanding, what WAS the actual translation process?

[Cow Poke]

No. King James English was the scriptural language of Joseph Smith's culture. In the mind of Joseph Smith, that was the way scripture spoke

And behold, it was imperative to Joseph Smith that the BoM have this "ring of authenticity", so it needed to sound King Jamesish. And it came to pass.

[Bill the Cat]

Who aside from Joseph Smith actually attempted the "translation process"?

Supposedly one of his co-conspirators, Oliver Cowdery, tried to translate at one point.

[One Bad Pig]

No. King James English was the scriptural language of Joseph Smith's culture. In the mind of Joseph Smith, that was the way scripture spoke, and that is how the messages and ideas transferred through his mind as a filter.

I don't think anybody disputes this.

That is why you see Church leaders like Brigham Young saying, “if the Book of Mormon were now to be rewritten, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation” (Journal of Discourses 9:311.)

This does not follow. The KJV was no less the scriptural language of BY's culture. Further, differences in the style of language used would not make a translation materially different (that is, provided both translations were accurate).

I am saying that if Joseph Smith happened upon a passage in the Book of Mormon, and it was the same message as given in the New Testament, then Joseph likely recalled New Testament sermons that he was familiar with. However, he still paid attention to some differences in the text.

Alternatively, Joseph Smith included some NT language in his writings because he was aiming for something that sounded scriptural.

For example, in the New Testament, Jesus says, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect." However, in the Book of Mormon, it reads "Be ye therefore perfect, even as I, or your Father in Heaven is perfect."

This would be due to the deafness of the author of the BoM to the socio-historical context of the NT, where such language would have been inappropriate.

Those rumors came from person/s who wouldn't have known how it actually worked and just imagined it to be that way from an out ward perspective (because Joseph would start on exactly where he left off). If that conception of the BoM translation were true, then Joseph would not have had to "study it out in his mind", but instead it would have been an entirely effortless process. Those actually attempting the translation process found that it was not effortless.

-7up

Who aside from Joseph Smith actually attempted the "translation process"? Those who assisted JS in his "translation process" thank you for throwing them under the bus.

[Bill the Cat]

You must mean a purportedly "lost" version of the Solomon Spaulding manuscript.

Philastus Hurlbut was the one who developed the Spaulding manuscript theory. However, when he visited Spaulding’s widow and offered her a share in profit for future publication, he discovered that the parallels to the Book of Mormon were not as convincing as he had hoped. It was at that time that he came up with the theory that there must have been another manuscript written by Spaulding that was “lost” and has never been found.

-7up

It was both Spaulding's wife and brother, among other close friends, who described the manuscript that was similar to the style and subject of the Book of Mormon, and the one at Oberlin College does not meet the description they made.

Source: http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/SRP13p1.htm

[Daniel] Tyler drew his knowledge concerning the Spalding "lost tribes" story from Erastus Rudd, an early Mormon convert from the vicinity just immediately east of Conneaut, Ohio. Erastus, his brother John, and their father, John Rudd, Sr., knew Spalding personally. The elder Rudd had purchased his land at the far corner of NW Erie Co., Pennsylvania from Spalding while their families lived back in Richfield, Otsego Co., New York. The Rudds and Solomon Spalding's family moved to the Conneaut region in the latter half of the first decade of the 1800s and lived within walking distance of each other, on either side of the Ohio-Pennsylvania state line.

Josiah [Spaulding] also says that he later received word from Spalding's widow that his brother had continued the history to the point where the civilized ancient inhabitants of America had been destroyed by the savages. The copy of the "Roman story" which was discovered some thirty years later breaks off its narration before any such total destruction. But Josiah says he was told that his brother's story ended with the triumph of the savages over the civilized peoples. Since this story element does not occur in the Oberlin document, it is reasonable to assume that Spalding, if he indeed told such a tale, must have done so in some other manuscript. Either the Roman story was re-written and extended, or its general features were reproduced in another, completed Spalding story. The author's whole point in writing a lost tribes story was to explain the demise of the advanced society of extinct mound-builders following their great wars in ancient America. Josiah's 1855 statement can be most easily accounted for if his brother did write a lost tribes story telling of these wars of extermination.


It was only after the discovery in Hawaii that Mormon defenders began to formulate their near universal conclusion that Solomon Spalding had written only one story during his lifetime and that this "Roman story" manuscript was recovered in 1884 and purportrfly shown to have absolutely no resemblance whatever to the style, vocabulary, theme, or intentions to the account given in the Nephite Record.

© Copyright Original Source

[seven7up]

I think more likely Solomon Spaulding had the verses in his manuscript and Joseph Smith just copied them.

You must mean a purportedly "lost" version of the Solomon Spaulding manuscript.

Philastus Hurlbut was the one who developed the Spaulding manuscript theory. However, when he visited Spaulding’s widow and offered her a share in profit for future publication, he discovered that the parallels to the Book of Mormon were not as convincing as he had hoped. It was at that time that he came up with the theory that there must have been another manuscript written by Spaulding that was “lost” and has never been found.

-7up

[seven7up]

So, your claim is that Jesus spoke King James English?

No. King James English was the scriptural language of Joseph Smith's culture. In the mind of Joseph Smith, that was the way scripture spoke, and that is how the messages and ideas transferred through his mind as a filter. That is why you see Church leaders like Brigham Young saying, “if the Book of Mormon were now to be rewritten, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation” (Journal of Discourses 9:311.)

I am saying that if Joseph Smith happened upon a passage in the Book of Mormon, and it was the same message as given in the New Testament, then Joseph likely recalled New Testament sermons that he was familiar with. However, he still paid attention to some differences in the text.

For example, in the New Testament, Jesus says, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect." However, in the Book of Mormon, it reads "Be ye therefore perfect, even as I, or your Father in Heaven is perfect."

Why was did Jesus include "I" in the Book of Mormon but not in the New Testament? Wouldn't it make more sense (especially if Trinitarians imagine the Father as a unembodied omnipresent spirit), for Jesus to say, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as I am perfect." Jesus does not expect us to become omnipresent unembodied spirits.

The key is understanding that Jesus was referring to BOTH spiritual perfection AND bodily perfection. God the Father is not an unembodied spirit, but instead is a spirit dwelling in an immortal and glorified body. In the New Testament, Jesus had not yet been resurrected, and therefore says, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect." In the Book of Mormon, Jesus appeared to the Nephites as a resurrected being, thus could include himself by saying, ""Be ye therefore perfect, even as I, or your Father in Heaven is perfect."

Are you forgetting that Smith transcribed the plates "letter by letter" and as each letter lighted up, he repeated it for verification, then proceeded.....

Those rumors came from person/s who wouldn't have known how it actually worked and just imagined it to be that way from an out ward perspective (because Joseph would start on exactly where he left off). If that conception of the BoM translation were true, then Joseph would not have had to "study it out in his mind", but instead it would have been an entirely effortless process. Those actually attempting the translation process found that it was not effortless.

-7up

[DigitalInkling]

Jesus Christ gave the same message to the people in Americas as he gave to the people in the Middle East. The people around Jesusalem wrote down the message and the descendants of Lehi wrote down the message.

When the message is consistent, it give more credibility. This is the point of having "two or more witnesses". When translating, if a phrase or verses were familiar to him (as the KJV obviously was), then the words would match and it is convenient to use the words familiar to him.

Joseph didn't "need" to use the KJV; he obviously "produced" original material not found in the KJV.

-7up

7up the uncola,

Are you saying that Joseph did use the KJV at times? Quoted it and put that in the book of mormon?

D.I.

[One Bad Pig]

So, your claim is that Jesus spoke King James English? Are you forgetting that Smith transcribed the plates "letter by letter" and as each letter lighted up, he repeated it for verification, then proceeded.....

OH WAIT, that's only ONE of the conflicting versions!

It didn't just match the KJV - it matched the 1769 revision of the KJV.

[Cow Poke]

Jesus Christ gave the same message to the people in Americas as he gave to the people in the Middle East. The people around Jesusalem wrote down the message and the descendants of Lehi wrote down the message.

When the message is consistent, it give more credibility. This is the point of having "two or more witnesses". When translating, if a phrase or verses were familiar to him (as the KJV obviously was), then the words would match and it is convenient to use the words familiar to him.

Joseph didn't "need" to use the KJV; he obviously "produced" original material not found in the KJV.

-7up

So, your claim is that Jesus spoke King James English? Are you forgetting that Smith transcribed the plates "letter by letter" and as each letter lighted up, he repeated it for verification, then proceeded.....

OH WAIT, that's only ONE of the conflicting versions!

[Bill the Cat]

I am perplexed at the ability of the Mormon Jesus from the Book of Mormon's ability to quote almost verbatim the epistles that the Apostles wrote many years later. It is also interesting that Jesus appeared to speak in King James English because the quotes also match the KJV for some reason.

Would a logical conclusion be that Joseph read the KJV and then inserted those verses into the B of M?

Digits and Ink

I think more likely Solomon Spaulding had the verses in his manuscript and Joseph Smith just copied them. But, you will get the standard response from Mormons that Jesus told Paul and the BOM author what to write.


*** Edit to add***

Told you.

[seven7up]

I am perplexed at the ability of the Mormon Jesus from the Book of Mormon's ability to quote almost verbatim the epistles that the Apostles wrote many years later. It is also interesting that Jesus appeared to speak in King James English because the quotes also match the KJV for some reason.

Would a logical conclusion be that Joseph read the KJV and then inserted those verses into the B of M?

Digits and Ink

Jesus Christ gave the same message to the people in Americas as he gave to the people in the Middle East. The people around Jesusalem wrote down the message and the descendants of Lehi wrote down the message.

When the message is consistent, it give more credibility. This is the point of having "two or more witnesses". When translating, if a phrase or verses were familiar to him (as the KJV obviously was), then the words would match and it is convenient to use the words familiar to him.

Joseph didn't "need" to use the KJV; he obviously "produced" original material not found in the KJV.

-7up

[DigitalInkling]

So the logic here is really important. I think it could be a big problem if you think logically about this issue.