There can be millions of Gods (after all, there are millions of Mormons). They presumably each will get their own universe-style space to create their own worlds. This is not spelled out, though, and lots of theories within Mormonism abound.
Yes, mainstream Mormons believe that Joseph Smith translated with divine help and thus didn’t make any errors like a regular translator would. You are confused about “Reformed Egyptian.” The Nephites and Lamanites spoke Hebrew (or presumably a dialect of Hebrew) but WROTE it down in a curious transcription system known as Reformed Egyptian. Reformed Egyptian is not a language. Otherwise Joseph Smith would have had to explain why the book wasn’t simply written in Hebrew.
Nitpick: he would put his seer stone in the hat, not the plates. They would never have fit inside a hat. In fact, it appears that most times, the “golden plates” weren’t even in the same room. As I said, most mainstream Mormons believe that the translation is perfect, or as close to perfect as God can get. However, more controversial (read: near heretical) theories have postulated that Joseph Smith’s 19th century point of view infected the translation and resulted in the glaring anachronisms that we see today.
Question: why are parts of the Book of Mormon identical to the Book of Isaiah? Mormon answer: it is well known that Joseph kept a copy of the KJV of the Bible on hand during his translation. When he came upon a portion of the Book of Mormon that was quoting Isaiah, he simply used the KJV word for word instead of rendering a new translation.
“We therefore freely admit that Joseph Smith may have used the King James version when he came to the text of Isaiah on the gold plates. As long as the familiar version agreed substantially with the text on the gold plates, he let it pass; when it differed too radically he translated the Nephite version and dictated the necessary changes.”
This is unofficial apologetics; Mormonism doesn’t do official apologetics, as then they’d actually have to take a stand on something. Much easier to let their members do the work for free, and then disavow it when it turns out to be faulty.
Perusing my link, it appears Mormons are more concerned about another Book of Mormon Isaiah problem, namely that the Book of Mormon quotes parts of Isaiah that were written AFTER the emigration to the New World.
Their response seems to that either:
modern biblical scholarship is wrong about the author and timing of the Book of Isaiah
or
the Nephites were inspired by God to know what would be written on the other side of the world and were able to quote it in that way.
As you can see, there is no limit to how far the goalposts can be moved. The real answer is that Joseph Smith was concerned only with the short-term. He had no conception of a better Bible translation or scholarship coming out in a hundred years, so there was no downside in quoting a bunch of Isaiah in his book. Looking at the slight variations between the KJV and BoM, it wouldn’t surprise me f those sections came straight out of his memory.
Quote:
Nitpick: he would put his seer stone in the hat, not the plates. They would never have fit inside a hat. In fact, it appears that most times, the “golden plates” weren’t even in the same room. As I said, most mainstream Mormons believe that the translation is perfect, or as close to perfect as God can get. However, more controversial (read: near heretical) theories have postulated that Joseph Smith’s 19th century point of view infected the translation and resulted in the glaring anachronisms that we see today.
So why the need to invent the “golden plates story” at all? They were taken back to heaven-maybe Smith never saw them either?
I’m still puzzled by the Professor Charles Anthon (LLD, Columbia University).
Dr. Anthon could not read ancient egyption…er…sorry "reformed " egyptian…and neither could any classical scholar in the USA or Europe at that time.
Yet the Mormon church insists that Dr. Anthon certified the text as geniune-when he actually said the opposite-who was lying?:smack:
The golden plates story was a blend of Joseph’s wild imagination and his previous career as a “money digger”. He had pretended to be able to use magic rocks to locate buried treasure protected by the ghosts of the people who had hidden the treasure. He also enjoyed speculating about the origins of the huge burial mounds near his home in upstate New York.
As far as whether Joseph or Dr. Anthon was lying, well, take your best guess.
I’ve followed the links and read related documents with some enthusiasm. But, when I sit back, relax and consider what I’ve read, here’s what I get (at best):
An Angel gave Joseph Smith a set of golden plates that recorded the history of ancient jews in America. Joseph translated the plates by sticking his head in his hat with a rock in the bottom. This is the method by which God has revealed the true state of modern Christianity.
Edward Abbey was right.
I could believe that Smith and his four or five confidants sat in a room and wrote the BoM narrative as they were moved to do so. Authors tell us that the characters write the book. The author is just the medium. But, why the hat and the rocks?
There must be more to the story. Was the novelty of the book and it’s translation sufficient to attract followers? I seriously doubt it. Where did the seed money come from for land and migration?
Was Smith getting land grants from the government and parceling them out to his flock? How was this thing funded?
There has to be more to the story than rocks in a hat.
That’s a pretty clear statement of a theocrat. And one too, full of assumptgions - I am he, not she for example. What other things in your worldview might be obnoxious to your fellow citizens you recokon?
No one has suggested that CoS is christian, but thanks for another misdirection where you want to disavow in other religions what you are perfectly prepared to embed in secular law of yours.
I’m not sure why there needs to be more to the story than a man with rocks in his hat. Sure, Mormonism is an unlikely success story, but that is due more to its 20th century strides towards respectability than anything that Joseph Smith did.
Charismatic religious con-men weren’t exactly in short supply in the 1800s and Joseph Smith was by all accounts extremely charismatic. Land grants? No, the church was funded by its members and often had to move around in the early days.
The reason Mormonism has survived unlike other religious movements like the Shakers and Oneida Community is simple. The Mormons geographically and culturally isolated themselves in 1847 by moving to Utah (part of Mexico at the time). With this lebensraum they were able create a self-sustaining insular community, the remnants of which are still visible and sustain the movement to this day.
Sadly, it all started with a man with rocks in his hat, with a fly that could not stay closed.
It would be interesting to understand the economic base of the United Order during the move to Kirtland. LDS accounts are not revealing. It looks like all, or most, of the New York Farms were deeded to the church (Smith). Smith liquidated them and then bought a couple of large farms in Ohio to be sub-divided among the incoming migrants. He must have had folks in New York selling land and banking or transporting the funds. In addition to the land there was a lot of farm equipment that could not be transported. That was sold also.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. That there was a secret source of funding for early Mormonism? Or something else?
That seems extremely unlikely and I know of no historian that has similar concerns.
I freely admit that early Mormon history is not my forte. I’d like to bone up on my history of the Kirtland Safety Society say, but my interest in Mormonism was waned along with my belief.
Some of this is told in the decidedly secular book Cadillac Desert, at least as it relates to settling Utah. I forget the details, but IIRC there was some land grant/homesteading issues, and then a lot of work by the Mormons to irrigate their small slice of land. That experience was later hired and otherwise used by the Federal water agencies, which, the book said, remained Mormon dominated well into the next century. It is left unsaid as to whether that dominance or leadership continues to this day.
It has been too many years since I read Cadillac Desert. I’ll have to review it. Early Mormon economics would certainly be an interesting area of study.
I am in the process of re-reading it myself. There was an expanded edition, about twice as long as I recall the earlier edition, before the author passed on.
I was wrong about the “United Order” and the “Law of Consecration”. They were not revealed until after the move to Kirtland.
My modern book on Mormon Doctrine presents both revelations as lofty goals of the LDS movement. Contemproray accounts are a little different. The United Order was a group of enterprises owned by Smith and some others to hold the “inventory” of the church. It was in effect for about 3 years. When disbanded the assets of the United Order were divided among Smith and the other owners - not the Church. The liabilities of the LDS stay in Kirtland were transferred to another company for settlement over time.
A few years later, when the faithful are in Nauvoo suffering the deprivations of previous migrations. Smith is operating a steamship company on the Mississippi to transport (for the price of a ticket) members and new converts to Navoo.
I couldn’t make sense of that, either Crane. “It’s just a test, but here’s a cheat sheet?” Wha?
The LDS church as a church does not necessarily place significance on wealth, but the underlying implication in the lessons is that True Believing Faithful Mormons™ receive blessings for their obedience. Amongst the teeming masses “blessings” tends to be interpreted as wealth. I’ve seen a lot of faithful devout men NOT be called to bishop (leader of the local congregation) and the gossip-circle implications are it is because that dude has a blue collar job or lives in a trailer with his wife and 6 kids. The guys who make the most money and/or have the most prestigious professions tend to get called into higher-level callings, such as the stake level (similar to a diocese in Catholicism). It’s all very much a social pressure thing, not explicitly taught in Sunday School (get rich or die trying because you won’t be a righteous mormon if you aren’t wealthy).
I’m catching up to this thread, so my apologies if someone else has already addressed this.
Remember how I said that all mormons are expected to spread the gospel because if they teach a message and you reject that message, your lack of salvation is on their head? This is why they work so hard to reactivate members who are dropping off the radar.
Well, of course there are millions and millions of people who lived and died on this earth without ever hearing the very special message from Joseph Smith. In order to provide to those people the opportunity to accept the gospel in the Spirit World (where they are awaiting Judgment Day), mormons are expected to do baptisms for the dead by proxy. Therefore, they are strongly encouraged (and this is not an essential-to-one’s-salvation doctrine. Yet) to research their family trees and submit names of the unwashed to the temples. Now, when a youth group takes a road trip to go do baptisms for the dead, they have a handy-dandy list of names of people for which they are being baptized.
On a personal note, after having struggled to get out and make a clean break, and then having struggled to get Salt Lake City to acknowledge my apostasy, I cannot tell you how much it pisses me off that one day I’ll die and some goddamned mormon will submit my name and go get baptized for me. Again. After I fought so hard to reject that doctrine. I’m trying to figure out if I can put something in my will that will allow the executors of my estate to sue the everlovin’ shit outta the church if they try to make me a member again after my death.
Step 2: Mine any names of your ancestors who were not mormon.
Step 3: Rat them out to the church. Submit their names to the temple for proxy ordinances.
Step 4: Go to the temple yourself. Put on weird white clothing. Step into baptismal font. Baptiser dude reads off a list of names you’ve never heard before. Ever.
Step 5: While still soaking wet and now in see-through white clothing, go sit in a chair while some other dude puts his hands on your head and confirms that baptism for the list of names of people you just dunked yourself for.
