User:InProgress/Common Questions Drafts/Page 4

Page 1|Page 2|Page 3|Page 4|Page 5|Page 6

QUESTION #7a: Evidence (archaeology, biblical references)

Short answer

There is plenty of evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, but there is no definitive proof. Belief in the messages of the Book of Mormon is ultimately an exercise in faith, although evidence exists to bolster that faith.

Longer answer

Over the past few decades LDS scholars have begun to study the Book of Mormon with the tools of scholarship. With these tools the following insights have been discovered:

  • New World archaeology is terribly difficult, and not at all analogous to Old World archaeology. We don’t have very many preserved texts from ancient New World cultures to help us establish the names of cities, languages, or peoples. Old World languages have persisted throughout the centuries, and because of that we can tie ancient cities to cities mentioned in the Bible. New World languages have not survived, and as a result archaeologists don’t know the names of very many New World cities, and so it is incredibly difficult to tie them to Book of Mormon cities.
  • Instead of looking for evidence of the Book of Mormon in the New World and/or the Old World, LDS scholars have had much success looking for evidence of the New World and/or the Old World in the Book of Mormon.
  • The Book of Mormon contains many literary and cultural details that we should expect from a book authored by New World descendants of Jerusalem.
  1. One example includes chiasmus, an ancient poetic style of writing that existed both in ancient Hebrew and in ancient American tongues. The Book of Mormon contains many chiasmi, some of them very impressive and which could not have been done by accident. See, for example, Alma 36. Many, many more examples are available.
  2. Another example of evidence is that The Book of Mormon describes a viable route from Jerusalem across the Arabian peninsula well before this route was know to western scholars. An altar with a Book of Mormon name has even been found in the right place, dating from the right time period.
  • As the years have gone by, LDS scholars have only discovered more and more supporting evidence for the Book of Mormon. The majority of the items that seemed foolish to include in a book about ancient America in Joseph Smith’s day have now been discovered to be authentic. The Book of Mormon consistently gets things right which would impossible for Joseph to have guessed.

Additional resources

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=14&num=2&id=376

  • Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon, by William Hamblin — In this essay FARMS scholar William Hamblin discusses important geographical and archaeological issues that are often ignored or unknown by critics and members alike. A better understanding of the difficulties associated with geography and archaeology is vital for anyone interested in Book of Mormon evidence.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=2&num=1&id=25

  • Behind the Mask, Behind the Curtain: Uncovering the Illusion, by Brant Gardner — In this essay published by FARMS Brant Gardner reviews a film produced by an anti-Mormon ministry that attempts to pit Book of Mormon archaeology against Biblical archaeology. Brant Gardner reviews their tactics and rebuts their claims about the Book of Mormon, and in the course of doing so he provides a treasure trove of information regarding Book of Mormon archaeology.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=17&num=2&id=581

  • The Power of Evidence in the Nurturing of Faith — This interesting essay by John Welch of FARMS discusses how to balance faith and science as we seek to strengthen our testimonies.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=8&chapid=60

QUESTION 7b: Textual changes in the Book of Mormon

Short answer

Mormons do not believe the Book of Mormon to be perfect or infallible because men, some of them uninspired, took part in the recording, copying, and publishing of the first and successive editions of the Book of Mormon. Hugh Nibley has observed that "once the possibility of human error is conceded, why should the idea of a corrected Book of Mormon be offensive? Revised and improved editions of the Bible are constantly coming from the press, and the Mormons have never believed in an infallible book or an infallible anything in which men have had a hand. God allows fallible humans to be co-workers with him on the road to a far-distant perfection, but he expects them to make lots of mistakes along the way" (Since Cumorah, p. 4).

There have been many changes made to the text of the Book of Mormon since it was first translated by Joseph Smith. The vast majority of those changes are changes in spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Latter-day Saints aren't bothered by it because we don't believe that any scripture is "inerrant". If and when a change to the text is necessary we welcome it as an opportunity to get closer to God's intended message.

Longer answer

Mormons do not believe the Book of Mormon to be perfect or infallible because men, some of them uninspired, took part in the recording, copying, and publishing of the first and successive editions of the Book of Mormon. Hugh Nibley has observed that "once the possibility of human error is conceded, why should the idea of a corrected Book of Mormon be offensive? Revised and improved editions of the Bible are constantly coming from the press, and the Mormons have never believed in an infallible book or an infallible anything in which men have had a hand. God allows fallible humans to be co-workers with him on the road to a far-distant perfection, but he expects them to make lots of mistakes along the way" (Since Cumorah, p. 4).

Book of Mormon authors themselves admitted their own susceptibility to err (1 Nephi 19:6; 2 Nephi 33:11; 3 Nephi 23:12-13; Mormon 8:12, 16-17; 9:31; Ether 12:23-25) and even the Book of Mormon title page admits, "if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore condemn not the things of God....”

Robert J. Matthews GeorgeCobabe who is he? GeorgeCobabenotes that during the Prophet Joseph Smith's lifetime, "three editions of the Book of Mormon were printed. Each time he amended the text in a few places to more correctly convey the intended meaning of his translation. Other changes in these and successive editions were made to correct typographical errors, improper spelling, and inaccurate or missing punctuation and to improve grammar and sentence structure or eliminate ambiguity. None of these changes, individually or collectively, alters the message of the Book of Mormon" (A Sure Foundation, p. 34).

Sidney B. Sperry GeorgeCobabe who is he? GeorgeCobabe affirmed that, "The sense of the first edition has not been disturbed in later editions, and the thousands of changes are relatively minor in nature, in matters of punctuation, spelling, diction, correction of errors and the like. The thing that counts still remains, the message and sense of the original translation" (Problems of the Book of Mormon, p. 209, as quoted in Stan Larson's Changes in Early Texts of the Book of Mormon, F.A.R.M.S. Reprint).

Gilbert W. Scharffs GeorgeCobabe who? GeorgeCobabeobserved that, "Ninety-nine percent of the original edition of the Book of Mormon has not been changed. Indeed, 4000 changes seems amazingly few.... Dozens of articles and books have been written on the subject of Book of Mormon changes and these changes have logical explanations and almost every change is trivial. It seems inconsistent for the authors to criticize the Book of Mormon that has but a small fraction of the number of changes that have been made in the Bible" (The Truth about The God Makers, p. 160; see also Scrapbook of Mormon Polemics, num. 1, pp. 2-3, Mormon Miscellaneous).

When one considers the fact that the Book of Mormon "manuscript was one solid paragraph, without punctuation mark, from beginning to end" (Nibley, Since Cumorah, p. 4) and that the printer was given free hand with punctuation and spelling, it should not surprise us that corrections were necessary in later editions. In fact, of the nearly 4000 changes noted by our critics, approximately 2000 were grammatical errors (Joseph Fielding McConkie, Seeking the Spirit, p. 38). Lack of standardization of spelling and grammar in those days and the use of multiple scribes in the translation process surely made later changes necessary to improve readability but when these are discounted we still have a small number of textual changes which remain.

  • JamesStutz (Alternative: I'd simplify the answer, removing all the quotes and breaking it down into easy points that a young missionary can regurgitate):

(1) Mormons don't view scripture in exactly the same way as some other Christians. Because scripture is not "inerrant" (flawless), it is ok to make changes from time to time to improve the text. It helps us get closer to God's intended message. It is entirely possible that further changes could be made to the Book of Mormon, which we would welcome GeorgeCobabe when GeorgeCobabe done by inspiration.

(2) The vast majority of all changes made to the Book of Mormon are changes in spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Only a small handful of changes have been made to the text that actually change the meaning of the text in any way. Many of these changes were made by Joseph Smith himself.

(3) Anyone is welcome to read earlier editions of the Book of Mormon and compare it with modern editions. GeorgeCobabe delete this statement and rephrase it in a positive statement: The LDS Church is not trying to be deceitful or secretive about these changes.GeorgeCobabe GeorgeCobabeThe Church is currently involved in a long project to make available all the documents regarding the various editions of the Book of Mormon.GeorgeCobabe GeorgeCobabe Comment not for the text: something should be noted about Skousen's work. GeorgeCobabe

(4) Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon was the "most correct book" in the sense that "a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book." In other words, the Book of Mormon is not the most correct book in terms of spelling, punctuation, and grammar, but in terms of its ability to bring a man closer to Christ.

(5) Modern translations of the Bible differ in thousands of ways from earlier translations of the Bible (ex. KJV vs. NIV). The changes are an attempt to improve translation and help the reader better understand God's intended message. That is precisely the motivation behind changes in the Book of Mormon.

Additional resources

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_textual_changes

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_changes.shtml

http://www.mormonfortress.com/changeb3.html

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_Changes_in_the_Book_of_Mormon.html

QUESTION 7c: Book of Mormon unusual references (claimed "anachronisms")

Short answer

The Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient work. Joseph Smith, though translating by the gift and power of God, rendered a translation in his own language using 19th century words that were as close as possible to the intent of the original authors. Words like "adieu" were in common use in Joseph Smith's day. Terms like "horse" were possibly the best translation for an animal that served the same or similar purpose for the people of the Book of Mormon.

  • JamesStutz(Alternative: I wouldn't introduce anachronisms that the questioner is not already aware of in our response):

Sometimes certain words or ideas appear in the Book of Mormon that might seem out of place at first glance. Over the past 100+ years LDS scholars have found logical explanations for each of these perceived "anachronisms".

Page 1|Page 2|Page 3|Page 4|Page 5|Page 6

Longer answer

The English Book of Mormon is a translation. This means that it is no more likely that the word adieu appeared on the plates than did the words yea, beginning, or sword. Except for proper nouns and a few other possibly transliterated nouns, no word that appears in the English version of the Book of Mormon can be said to have been on the ancient Nephite plates.

Similarly, the phrase "and it came to pass" never appeared anywhere on the Nephite plates. Whatever character, word, or phrase that had been engraved on the plates was translated by Joseph Smith into what he felt was an approximate equivalent in English.

Despite the fact that the word adieu appears in the English translation of the Book of Mormon, the word adieu was certainly not known to any Book of Mormon writer, the word adieu was never used by any Book of Mormon writer, and the word adieu did not appear anywhere on the Nephite plates.

One should not reject the possibility of "loan-shifting," in which a name for a familiar species is applied for a new species. This is a well-known phenomenon — for example, Amerindians called European horses 'deer' when they first encountered them. The classic example is, of course, the hippopotamus, which name the Greeks gave to an animal they called a "river (potamus) horse (hippo)." Critics who scoff should ask themselves how anyone could mistake a hippopotamus for a horse — the answer, of course, is that the Greeks knew perfectly well that the hippo was not a true horse, but the name stuck.

  • JamesStutz(Alternative: I'd turn these into bullet points that an inexperienced young missionary can simply copy and paste)

GeorgeCobabe too much information about subjects that were not asked about. I would keep it far more general. GeorgeCobabe

The so called "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon have all been accounted for through plausible explanations. These explanations all tend to fall into a few categories:

  • The Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient document. Sometimes in the translation an English word is used whose origin is far removed from Ancient America or ancient Hebrew or Egyptian. Some examples include "Christ", "church" and "adieu". Those words obviously would not have been used by the ancient authors of the Book of Mormon, but they are part of modern English and so Joseph Smith used those words to translate the equivalent Nephite word on the gold plates. The same practice is found in the Bible (ex. the word "book" in the Old Testament)
  • Many perceived anachronisms are not anachronisms at all. Over the years scholars, LDS and non-LDS alike, have discovered many items in the Americas that at one point were considered anachronistic. Those items are no longer anachronistic. Examples include complex civilizations, cement, various animals and plants, and swords.
  • Some of the "anachronisms" can be accounted for through "loan-shifting". Loan-shifting is when an object is given the name of something similar to it because the real name is unknown or does not exist in a particular language. For example, the ancient Greeks did not have a name for the large mammal they found swimming in the Nile river, so they used a name for something it reminded them of, the "horse", and so they named it "river-horse", which in Greek is "hippopotamus". This very common phenomena might account for some of the perceived anachronisms in the Book of Mormon.

Additional resources

QUESTION 7d: How can one know if the Book of Mormon is true?

Short answer

We must read the Book of Mormon, ponder the mercy of the Lord in giving scripture to men, and pray to the Father in the name of Christ asking if these things are not true; with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ.

Longer answer

Medium Answer: We must read the Book of Mormon, ponder the mercy of the Lord in giving scripture to men, and pray to the Father in the name of Christ asking if these things are not true; with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ. Moroni 10 specifies: 

 3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. 
 4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. 
 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. 
 6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is. 
 7 And ye may know that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever.

GeorgeCobabe Delete the following as it is repetitive: It says we must read the Book of Mormon, ponder the mercy of the Lord in giving scripture to men, and pray to the Father in the name of Christ asking if these things are not true; with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ. GeorgeCobabe

Additional resources

 [needs work]

QUESTION 8a: Joseph Smith: Is it true he married a 14-year-old girl?

Short answer

Yes, it is true Joseph Smith married a 14 year-old. It as not uncommon for girls as young as fourteen to marry during this period, particularly if they lived on the American frontier, where Joseph Smith resided at this time.

Longer answer

Yes, it is true Joseph Smith married a 14 year-old. This was not uncommon for girls as young as fourteen to marry during this period, particularly if they lived on the American frontier, where Joseph Smith resided at this time. One historian explained that the American frontier produced conditions that encouraged “early and continuous marriage of pioneer women” and “girls married young and were in a constant state of matrimony.” [James E. Davis, Frontier America, 1800-1840: A Comparative Demographic Analysis of the Settlement Process (Glendale, California: Arthur H. Clark, 1977), 52.] In fact, “teenage marriage was over four times more common in Joseph Smith’s America than it is today.” [Craig L. Foster, David Keller, and Gregory L. Smith, “The Age of Joseph Smith’s Plural Wives in Social and Demographic Context,” in Newell G. Bringhurst and Craig L. Foster, eds, The Persistence of Polygamy: Joseph Smith and the Origins of Mormon Polygamy (Independence, Missouri: John Whitmer Books, 2010), 160.]

Thus marrying teenage girls on the American frontier was more common than modern people realize. For example, one non-Mormon pioneer woman was asked to marry while she was still fourteen. She later recalled, “I was nearly fifteen years old and I thought it was high time that I got married so I consented.” Another person later remembered that in 1840s Oregon “the young men began wondering why a girl wasn’t married if she was still single when she was 16.” Limited available statistics from non-Mormon counties near Nauvoo also had a significant number of marriages to teenage brides. In Louisa County, Iowa, for example, between 1842 and 1852, fifty-one percent of marriages were to brides aged nineteen and younger. Seventeen percent of the females married when they were sixteen and younger. Thus Joseph Smith’s marriage to a fourteen year old bride was not out of step with his time-period. On the American frontier in the 1840s, men often married women much younger than themselves, and women tended to marry younger.

In Joseph Smith's case, he married Helen Mar Kimball three months before her 15th birthday. While such a marriage would not be unusual for Joseph's time and place, most historians have concluded that this marriage was intended to link Joseph’s family with his close friend, apostle Heber C. Kimball—it was likely did not involve sexual relations.

Additional resources

  • http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Helen_Mar_Kimball
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Mar_Kimball
  • http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Marriages_to_young_women
  • http://en.fairmormon.org/Template:PolygamyWiki
  • Craig L. Foster, David Keller, and Gregory L. Smith, “The Age of Joseph Smith’s Plural Wives in Social and Demographic Context,” in Newell G. Bringhurst and Craig L. Foster, eds, The Persistence of Polygamy: Joseph Smith and the Origins of Mormon Polygamy (Independence, Missouri: John Whitmer Books, 2010), 153-184.
  • Michael Grossberg, Governing the Hearth: Law and the Family in Nineteenth-Century America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988), 106. According to this source, the United States continued to base its marriage laws on the “traditional English common-law nuptial-age demarcations” which allowed marriage at twelve for women and fourteen for men. These same statutes became a part of American common law, and “every American state adopted these age boundaries after the Revolution.”
  • S.N.D. North, comp., and Desmond Walls Allen, ed., Marriage Laws in the United States, 1887-1906 (Conway, Arkansas: Arkansas Research, 1993). According to North and Allen, As late as 1906, six states still retained a minimum age of twelve for girls. These states included Kansas, Missouri, and Rhode Island. In 1887, New Hampshire changed the permissible marriage age for girls from twelve to thirteen. Eight other states, including Iowa, Texas, and Utah, had fourteen as the minimum age for girls. As late as 1905, fourteen was the legal marriage age for girls in Illinois. Interestingly, thirteen states, including Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Vermont had no fixed minimum marriage age. (specific references are on pages 32-34, 48, 53-54, 70-71, 75-77)
  • Daniel S. Smith, “American family and demographic patterns and the north-west European model,” Continuity and Change 8:3(1993): 389-415.

Page 1|Page 2|Page 3|Page 4|Page 5|Page 6

Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=User:InProgress/Common_Questions_Drafts/Page_4&oldid=79802"