Is The Book of Mormon a Bible Copycat? || Investigating the CES Letter
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 окт 2024
- Patreon - patreon.com/TheStickofJoseph
Tax-deductible donation - venmo.com/u/Ho...
In this episode Hayden dives head-first into the CES letter, investigating its first claims regarding The Book of Mormon. The CES Letter claims that Joseph Smith plagiarized verses from the Bible and that it is not an inspired book of scripture. You be the judge on this episode of "Investigating the CES Letter."
Like, subscribe and follow us on Instagram under the handle of @thestickofjoseph
#jesus #christ #jesuschrist #bookofmormon #mormon #thechurchofjesuschristoflatterdaysaints #lds #scriptures #bookofmormonevidences #bookofmormonarchaeology #archaeology #stickofjoseph #thestickofjoseph #lehi #nephi #sariah #laman #lemuel #josephsmith #laban #sword #swordoflaban #waynemay #bookofmormongeography #bookofmormoncentral #bookofmormonstories #heartland #heartlandtheory #hopewell #mounds #moundbuilders #hopewellmoundbuilders #adena #smithsonian #mesoamerica #maya #mayan #decendinggod #god #faith #resurrection #christian #ancient #ancienthistory #ancientcivilizations #amazon #america #american #unitedstates #unitedstatesofamerica #constitution
I read it. And then I read the PDF documents called "Debunking the CES letter." Now my testimony is even stronger.
That's the problem, so many people stop digging after reading the CES letter and end up being fooled. Glad you kept going!
I agree. My concerns have been resolved, and my testimony is stronger than ever. Opposition in all things.
Exactly me too, read it, researched it and debunked it, and my testimony is stronger than ever now!
These comments make me happy to hear❤
Where did you find the document? Just a Google search?
This is so good, really appreciate you guys doing this. You're right, fear and confusion leads out when this is brought up with most members - and I think knowing what the CES Letter states and claims, while still sticking to your normal scripture study would be a good thing. I know multiple people who have read this but didn't do the research you're doing. They just took what others said as true without their own research. This is so important.
I'm only part way through this video and I can already say I am super excited about this series! I don't have time to sit and read the bullcrap on the CES letter, So having you guys do it for me while providing the background research is super awesome! I can do my work and listen to this at the same time and kill 2 birds with one stone 😊😊 😊😊
Are you essentially saying, you won't listen to the criticism of your faith, but you will listen to the apologetic of those criticism? Wouldn't it be better to just stay sheltered and rely on faith alone?
This might be the most Mormon comment I’ve ever read. “Perfect you did the research for me so I don’t have to look on my own” This is exactly why people call your church a cult. Why can’t you just do your due diligence and look at both sides like you would do with any other topic. You’re hypocrites.
@@jamesbayless5842 No I listen to it all the time I don't have time to sit and read anything. But I have a job where I can listen to whatever I want for at least 2 or 3 hours a day, but not free time to read.
Yes, outsource your thinking instead of investigating the truth of it for yourself. What a good widdle Mormon you are 😊
Interesting criticisms, illustrating exactly what the anti-position tends to do...not study carefully. I'm not sure where the intellectual value is in taking time to 'study' half-truths, and disenfranchised complaints. "If there is anything virtuous, lovely or of good report, we seek after these things." Seeking after the opposite serves no redeeming value.
So yes, having someone else break this all apart to truly examine it is helpful. Disses lack true intellectual exchange. Waste of time for both parties.
Thanks for tackling this. The way I heard people talk, I thought I would just stay away from the CES letter. You’re talking through it in just a matter of fact kind of way. I really appreciate it. As others have said, this strengthens my testimony even more.
And of course, JS gets no credit when his Isaiah translation more closely aligns with the Septuagint or Dead Sea Scrolls Isaiah rather than the King James Version.
LOL 😂 : how did his Revelation changes turn out ? A: CURSED!
@@davidjanbaz7728where are these plagues, that the book of revelation promises to someone adding or removing words, apparent in Joseph's life? Dying is not the same as having specific curses that are predicted in a prophetic book. They were absent in some miraculous way, if he supposedly was violating God's will and going against a promised specific curse.
Do you have any source for this I don't see any evidence for this
@@sheepinwolfesclothing.
I know there have been studies done on the subject but the one example that comes to mind is Isaiah 2:16. The BoM adds “all the ships of the sea” to the KJV of “ships of tarshish and pleasant pictures”. I’m paraphrasing. I don’t have it in from of me. But “all the ships of the sea” is in the Septuagint.
@@sammoon67 i just read a direct version of the dead sea scroll translation, KJV has the correct translation. Do you have a video or study your referencing?
I was active in the church from birth up until 19 years of age. I had a lot of major things happen, most of which was church culture and being pretty horrifically abused and bullied at the hands of some members yet I stayed faithful because I understood the people are not the church or its doctrine. That was until some church history, doctrine, and rules didn’t sit right with me. I moved out to Utah to continue my studies and found even more history that upset me. My family is still very religious and I’m a direct descendant from former pioneers. I couldn’t just write off the years of my life that I dedicated to the church and at one point had strong faith in. The CES letter was something I came upon and I talked with my parents about. But I want to be looking at both sides of the spectrum equally to form my final conclusion. I appreciate your breakdown and will be watching the entire series with an open mind. There were some studies I did that disproved the CES letter and had once again threw my mind into a whirlwind of what is the truth. I hope this series will be able to help me come to a conclusion
LDS Discussions is the answer from you then :)
Your answer doesn't lie with man. Only God can make clear, even though he requires us to make a huge effort to see on our own. Man's premise is that all is false, but with God all is truth. Where then should we look?
I’ve personally had it witnessed to me by the Holy Spirit through a friend that this is the true church. I’d love to talk about that experience if you’d like :)
Turn your heart towards Jesus. Read His words in the gospel of John. He is speaking directly to you. Give your heart to Him and He alone will show you the way. His way.
@tomjones3901 I agree, and if I hadn't, I would know less and be less than I am today. Jesus is the way as in gatekeeper and the way as in exemplar.
I don't believe the first verse mentioned here is a transcription error, there may be a better answer. On Runnells' criticism of 2 Nephi 19:1 vs. Isaiah 9:1: I've read that passage where the Book of Mormon says "by way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the Nations" many times and have always thought of it as if the viewpoint was from way above the earth itself and then zooming down into the land of Palestine "by way of the Red Sea" - so I've never thought it to mean what he tries to indicate, as if it's literal geographically. It seems to be somewhat figurative. Note the previous verse: "they (those captive in Babylon) shall look unto the earth" (view themselves as above earth comparatively speaking) "and they shall look UNTO THE EARTH and behold trouble.." (Caps added) They were in trouble because they had effectively left the faith and were in darkness, completely captive, and in need of deliverance. So you could see them figurately placing themselves above the beautiful earth, envision their view as the camera angle zooms in, coming from the south across the Red Sea, easily covering the 250 miles into "Galilee of the Nations," where the Savior would make his appearance. I'm not so sure it's a Book of Mormon transcript error. And the comparison to other translations cannot be conclusory, because over 55 percent of the differences found in the Book of Mormon Isaiah verses vs. the comparable Bible Isaiah verses ENHANCE or clarify grammar and some even add significant substance and meaning. And could the mention of the Red Sea also be a figurative allusion to Jesus Christ as our deliverer? (The forebears of that same children of Israel were delivered across that sea, and it held special symbolic meaning to them.)
Let me get this straight, some random dude wrote a negative letter about the church and a bunch of people put their faith in him and left?
Think of the fruits people. That random dude is leading people away from Christ. The Book of Mormon only draws people closer unto Christ. Which one is of God?? Hmm thats a tough one
Let me get this straight, some random dude wrote a bible fan fiction with his head in a hat based on treasure guarding spirits and magic rocks, and a bunch of people put their faith in him and let him marry 40 of their wives and daughters?
Think of the harm people. That random dude was exploiting people for sex, money, and power. The CES letter only helps shine a light on the things a 200 Billion dollar megachurch would prefer to hide from their general membership so tithing keeps flowing. Which document sounds more reasonable? That's a tough one.
See how easy it is to write a couple exaggerated sentences and make it sound crazy? I believe what I wrote above, but it is entirely without context and makes it sound much crazier than reality. That's what you did with the CES letter.
Don’t judge someone’s merits by how “random” they are. Judge them in accordance to the content they share & probably how they apply it. And I don’t think it’s fair to say he’s “leading people away from Christ”. Following him is a personal decision & endeavor. Reading a book or practicing a religion is only one way to do it.
I love that you’re doing this, I know the church is true not just through my head but by a witness of the Spirit to my spirit, after time taken in applying the principles and teachings. I’ve truly found peace. I’m so grateful for my faith and happy to be a member.
^_^ Great !
Maybe you can help me understand :
Brigham Young said :
You see some classes of the human family that are BLACK, uncouth, uncomely, DISAGREEABLE and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the INTELLIGENCE that is generaly bestowed upon mankind... Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a TERMINATION to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a MARK UPON HIM, which is the FLAT NOSE and BLACK SKIN.
Brigham Young
( Journal of Discourses volume 7: p.290)
Speech in 1863.
Do you agree with him ? Is it TRUTH ?
You guys rock! Thanks for all the work! Been exciting to see you guys grow so fast. Thanks for fighting for something that means so much to so many of us.
Thanks for the love! You’re the man!
You guys are quickly becoming one of the best faithful channels on RUclips :)
You’re a legend yourself!
^_^ I like "legend",
Let's listening to this one :
Brigham Young said :
You see some classes of the human family that are BLACK, uncouth, uncomely, DISAGREEABLE and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the INTELLIGENCE that is generaly bestowed upon mankind... Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a TERMINATION to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a MARK UPON HIM, which is the FLAT NOSE and BLACK SKIN.
Brigham Young
( Journal of Discourses volume 7: p.290)
Speech in 1863.
Do you agree with what Brigham Young said ? Is it TRUTH ?
Your channel is great! I am so happy that you are taking this on faithfully! Thank you for your work! God bless you.
I think it's concerning how you glossed over the translation process, and tried to throw Oliver under the bus. By most accounts, Joseph used a seer stone that provided English words which were repeated by the scribe before new words would appear. Joseph also reviewed the manuscript and the printers version during the printings to the point that some first editions differ from others, making the errors Joseph’s issue. The more likely answer was that Joseph did say Red Sea and wasn't familiar with Middle East geography.
Underrated comment
Fantastic! Very well done. I'm looking forward to more. I'm just sad this kind of research has to be done. Talk about many being unappreciative of a gift meant to bless lives and alleviate so much of the suffering we see today. Instead, they reject the gift and seem to bask in the suffering.
But don’t you think it’s a good test? I mean it’s been done in most other religions/denominations. I would also say its not unappreciative of the gift, there can be a lot of pain associated with the words Christ or Christian. There’s a lot of non believers who don’t have a problem with God/Christ but with Christians. Please remember that some really do have a valid reason to have problems with . . . established religion.
Well said, downsmath! Can’t wait to see more. It is laughable at how little effort it takes to debunk the critics. It is a clear evidence as to the amount of true study they put into the subject matter before completely dismissing it - next to none. It boils down to the truth of the matter which is that they were just looking to an excuse or “off-ramp” to leave the church and to excuse why they do not follow the teachings of Jesus. It is sad they throw away something so beautiful for something that will ultimately be completely fleeting. As the scriptures say “the wicked taketh truth to be hard” and “wickedness never was happiness.”
@@Stingray1965 Are you sure people are just “looking for an off ramp.” The answer they would give you is different than an answer they would give someone who will listen.
“The wicked taketh truth to be hard” can be said about both parties Christian/non or lds/not. While I don’t disagree with you on most critiques of the church, I do disagree when you talk about some individual stories. BOTH can be true without offending anyone and still giving credit where credit is due.
@@YDKM1959Not worth my time or the argument. I stand by what I have said. Now move on. God bless!
I have to say, I'm exmormon and I'm sure we disagree on a lot of points, but I really appreciate how open and honest you are with this approach. Great video!
Hey bro, thanks for sharing that! Glad you watched and hope you know you're welcome here!
Love it bro! Love when we can all share and treat each other kindly despite our different beliefs!
Prayers for you brother, 🙏 I appreciate your kindness ❤ thank you!
Everyone is uplifted when given knowledge.
Thanks for joining the trip 😎🙏
Scholars have found over 100 major contradictions in the Bible. Why is this acceptable to believers while a handful of errors, not doctrinally significant in the a Book of Mormon, are seen as evidence that the book isn’t of God? People in glass houses.
Maybe because God helped him translate it and God approved it?
I’ve thought a lot about that recently, as well. The most recent thing I was pondering was the timeline of Christ’s death to resurrection to His ascension to heaven and then His subsequent visit in the Americas. The New Testament authors contradict each other with some making it seem as though His ascension into heaven was shortly after His resurrection and other authors stating that He spent some 40 days with the apostles before His ascension. The Bible isn’t perfect. The Book of Mormon isn’t perfect. Both are the word of God.
Atheist scholars? You mean you didn’t know that there’s actual contradictions between the book of Mormon and the doctrine and covenants? Like for example, how the Book of Mormon as God as a spirit and yet when you look at the doctrine covenants, it says God is not a spirit? Which is it?
@@outdoorcooks488There is a preface which literally mentions that any mistakes therein are from men. God allows for this because it testifies of His power- human language and understanding is ALWAYS limited, yet He is not, and through faith in Christ all things can be overcome. Even the greatest writ of man inspired by God will be flawed.
@@Sirach144
The Book of Mormon is from a different time period, the D&Cs are modern time.
The Book of Mormon doesn’t claim God the Father has no body, it does say everyone is created in God’s image. So if the church continues to believe we will be resurrected with bodies, and Christ has a body, so must the Father. The Saviour cannot be viewed as a similitude between the Old and New Testament times. In Old Testament times before the coming of Christ, Christ was a spirit with no body. In the New Testament Christ came to earth receiving a body, lived in the flesh, and was resurrected with a spiritual body.
In one Christ has a body, in the other he doesn’t.
The Book of Mormon doesn’t teach a trinitarian view of the Godhead as the CES Letter author claims, it describes the Godhead as three distinct beings one in purpose, I see that’s why the author was very selective of which scriptures he included and dismissed. Being 3 separate beings one in purpose is also taught in John 17 when the Saviour is praying to the Father. Christ asks the Father to make his disciples one in the same way he and the Father are one. That gives us two options, either all disciples are one disciple in multiple bodies like the Trinity is one God made of 3 persons, or all disciples are distinct beings one in purpose as the church believes about the Godhead.
The apostle Paul teaches this further by describing Christ’s church as “the body of Christ”, one also means unity, all disciples unified as one body of Christ, one shepherd and one flock.
Pumping iron while listening to The Stick of Joseph 💪🏻
Snagret, I am not kidding when I say this: EVERY SINGLE TIME I see you comment on a video it makes me smile!! Ever since our bonding on Midnight Mormons I think of you as a legend!
@@thestickofjoseph hahaha, that livestream was legendary - love you guys, keep it up!
I'm an active member of the LDS church. I was born and raised in the church, and I'm not an anti- mormon. I've read through many of these comments here. I also had some deep questions since I was a child way before I stumbled upon the CES letter before. I believe that God blessed us with common sense, eyes to see, and ears to hear. He has been very clear that his laws don't change depending on the culture or the times.
Many people are leaving the church because they are studying and praying about these questions, and they are getting the truth. The truth is that there are plenty of ungodly things and errors within the church, and with our leaders, which culturally we are not "allowed" to point it out due to the culture of "follow the prophet" mind set or you will "go astray". As a church, if we keep silencing those with questions and avoiding the hard questions, or using answers like "we'll understand on the next life", instead of owning up and calling them for what they are, mistakes, people will leave. The Bible is full of prophets who made huge mistakes which negatively affected people, why are our prophets today any different? That's why we have personal revelation, to make sure what we are learning is correct no matter who says it, no matter what calling our power of authority they have.
Another reason driving the exit of the church, is the teaching that if one thing is true, everything else must be true too. Well the problem is that it is causing the opposite effect with things like black and the priesthood, polygamy, the MM massacre, changes with Temple ordinances etc etc, if those things are wrong, then the church is not of God. My personal revelation is that there is truth and lies within the church.
What I also noticed is that many members are too scared and not ready to face these issues, and it's easier for them to attack everyone else than face it, but I try to have grace because no matter where you are in your spiritual jersey, you are where you need to be for now. Things will get better.
For those members who want to attack those members for no longer ignoring the questions coming from their loved ones or who are having a faith crisis, please ponder these questions.
Are you sure you want to cast the first stone?
Are your words and actions being Christ like and helping people feel loved and welcomed?
Things like, endure to the end; attend sacrament regularly; serve in the Temple for your kindred dead; and many others are not mistakes by any modern prophet. If you throw them away, you have overstepped the mark. What few mistakes there would be are not enough to throw the baby out with the bath water. Stay on the covenant path.
These are all things that are much easier to understand and even give us greater perspective on the Glory and mercy of God if we continue to study deeply, and do not stop at the very first troubling source. If you are reading and studying about Church History, dig deeper. I can testify that the Church is led by inspired Prophets of God, who are righteous and Holy and hold all the Keys necessary for salvation and exaltation. It is not my job to fix the errors in this Church, just as it is not my job to judge those who leave or struggle. It is my job to obey and seek truth and understanding that i may become more perfect like my Savior.
The prophets invite me to live righteously, love God and my Neighbor, and partake in Sacred Covenants. I have overcome so much pain, sin and weakness by living obediently and keeping my Covenants. Those who testify against the prophets do not invite me continuously to keep my covenants. Satan mixes a little truth with a great lie- it is uncomfortable to consider that God would allow us to stumble for so long on as we adhered to the false “Mark of Cain” cultural doctrine (which came from the Baptists originally, not us), but God also allowed for over a thousand years of Apostasy, even with many professed and righteous disciples of Christ still on the Earth. He is wise, and I can never comprehend all of His purposes now. But to allow it to obscure that which saves, the Living Son of God?
I am a little confused by some of the things you said. The “culture” of “follow the prophet” is not, in fact, a culture. We are commanded by God over and over to follow the Prophet. If you are receiving revelation that suggests to you the Prophets are incorrect despite their authority AND their guidance aligning with scripture, I assure you that is not true revelation. Also, what are all those instances of prophets making huge mistakes that hurt so many people that you are talking about? I can’t think of anything beyond Jonah, and He repented and the work was done anyways.
Look, God gives and takes away light and truth dependent on the obedience of His people- He has done it throughout all scripture. A culture so keen on discrimination and filled with a prideful understanding that rejects Christ will not receive more light, and so often prophets are forbidden from giving us the greater portion that we might be chastened. God chastens those He loves. WE are the ones who must repent. If we want to build up Zion, we must be willing to hold the tools and place the heavy stones. We must show faith and gratitude for what we are given, and not assume that we are so righteous that we would usurp the authority and order God has restored!
One more thought to keep in mind is that the Isaiah in the Book of Mormon was from the Brass Plates, which may or may not have been what was eventually passed down through other texts that made it in to the Septuagint and other bible variations. We should expect some minor differences along the way.
The whole idea that any of these nitpicky nuances are major concerns for the writer of the CES letter demonstrates more of a willingness to accept any argument at face value against The Church of Jesus Christ than actual study to find the truth.
Bingo!!
Yo! I need a podcast. Love the RUclips videos but can’t always sit down to watch the movie.
Also the CES letter is a huge undertaking. From one faithful member to another thanks for taking the time.
Couple bad arguments in this one:
1. The stone wouldn’t let them move on if it wasn’t written right, so oliver can’t have misheard or written it down wrong. (If you believe whitmer’s account.)
2. The argument isn’t that the Hebrew should be translated 1:1. The argument is what are the odds that in representing these abstract ideas from the Hebrew, that Moroni and then Joseph come up with the same words as the king James translators? If you and a former companion translated a verse from Hungarian, what are the odds it would be word for word? Probably low. It just demonstrates his reliance on the KJV.
You guys do incredible work. Thank you for your patience, time and efforts put into each and every one of these videos!
Thank you for addressing this. Many of the members of my wife's family have cited the CES letter as a major contributing factor to their loss of testimony. My wife and I investigated the first several claims, and they didn't hold water. That said, this claim has lingered in my mind as a question I could not totally resolve. This was an excellent rebuttal. I'm really enjoying this channel. Keep going!
I appreciate your approach to this, and I look forward to seeing the whole series. I recommend that anyone who has concerns in this area read Jonathan Neville's book "A man that can translate". It will help clarify a lot of this. Of course, one can simply read the Book of Mormon to see if it is beneficial for their life and get a testimony directly from the Holy Ghost. That would be my main recommendation. it is your sincere approach that will help you find what is right for you. This is your life. I hope that you will seriously consider the dramatic impact The Book of Mormon can have on it.
It's important to note that the foundation for the "CES letter," "Book of Mormon Stories," and other critiques of the Church can be traced back to Fawn Brodie's book, "No Man Knows My History," published in 1945. Similar concerns arise due to questionable interpretations, misuse of evidence, and factual errors, as seen in her work. However, her book itself has roots in earlier writings dating back to 1834 by authors like Eber D Howe. Claims made by excommunicated members, such as Philastus Hurlbut claiming its true, but it really exposed Howe's book as containing falsehoods. Jeremy Reynolds has essentially taken all this content, given it a modern twist, and presented it with an enticing layer of persuasion.
If we're not allowed to use excommunicated members as sources, then you can't use faithful member accounts from the same time period to bolster your claims. It has to be fair to both sides.
I was running an estate sale at my parents' house a few months ago. We had people coming in who would remark how nice and beautiful the house was. My parents had some LDS artwork and one woman came in and asked if we are Mormons. I said yes. She said you should check the CES letter. I had no idea what it was but I had a strong suspicion it was anti-mormon material. I was just amazed someone would come in to another person's house when religion was not the point of discussion (it was an estate sale) and say "here enjoy this attack on your cherished faith".
And before anyone says, "but LDS missionaries " It is very different. It is clear when missionaries come in they are their to proselytize which may even include challenging your beliefs but they do it with your understanding that is their purpose.
It was funny because also at the sale were Jehovah Witness missionaries who were Spanish speaking. I conversed with them in Spanish they said I spoke very well and they gave me a pass along card. I definitely was more convinced of their conviction in Christ and their charity to me than the woman who said, "You need to see the CES letter it will change your mind."
Well. The LDS missionaries were firm and almost rude in telling me my Catholic baptism was “unauthorized” and “illegitimate”. I told them I don’t go door to door and bash Mormonism. I was shocked at their disrespectful nature after initially being so nice.
@@Zeett09I'm sorry that they were rude. It does make sense we would have different opinions on what constitutes a valid baptism that's why we are in different churches but I wouldn't like it if someone was rude to me about it either.
Not to be rude, but as an RM myself, that is quite literally what we would do in SA. We were taught to bible bash, shove our feet in people's doors to make sure they heard our message, and all sorts of other things. It really isn't very different. And at least this lady was relatively upfront with you and left it as a single statement, rather than pestering you for moths or even years. Missionary work is also very conniving (thoguh most members don't realize this) and involves forming lots of fake friendships, purposefully seeking out weakpoints in their lives and exploiting them to push the message, etc.
@@jonbaker476 I'm not going to say that you weren't taught that in your south African mission and that you didn't do that because I wasn't there. But that sounds totally opposite to what I did in my mission. I mean we could do any of those things you mentioned if we twisted what we were asked to do into something more conniving as you say but we were never "trained" to do that. My roommate went to south Africa and it sounded like a very difficult place.
@@logankearl8115I thought he meant South America 🤷
Anyone who is using the CES letter as the basis for their leaving the church has been looking for a “good enough” excuse all along and is intellectually weak (my opinion obviously). But I jokingly say all time “I’m offended! Now I can stop coming to church.” Another weak excuse to take the “easy” path. My testimony is rock solid. I know the truth and no one can sway me from the covenant path! The points the CES letter make are weak at best! Thanks for making this series! Looking forward to future episodes.
Love your work guys!
Great to see so many members of the Church of Jesus Christ content creating for Jesus and His Restored Gospel!
FAIR has a really GREAT point by point refutation of everything in the CES letter! It’s definitely worth a look! (FAIR has a mobile app now too!)
What’s the name of the mobile app. Can’t find it in the Apple store
To be fair, there are many refutations of FAIR's interpretations as well. If I rememebr correctly Bill Reel used to work with FAIR as well. One must adequately listen to both sides fora while and n ot just assume FAIR has actually debunked anything. Sometimes they do but I've also caught them twisting information or trying to shove things under the rug
@@jonbaker476as someone who has worked with FAIR and on their wiki, they do not deliberately/intentionally try to sweep uncomfortable things under the rug.
My experience with FAIR is that their content is dry ... as an older millennial I find this delivery is much more entertaining 🙏
Thanks for mentioning the FAIR app, I had no idea!
Love this! I've read it and still have some concerns with it but I love your approach and I think it'll really help me to process through all those claims without the tempting knee jerk reaction many mistakenly make to jump ship and risk losing my testimony.
Why be afraid of, in your coded language: "losing my testimony", isn't it just finding the truth instead of relying on your feelings and then trying to cherry pick evidence and twist evidence towards your feelings so that you can belong in the Church? Religious faith is lying, plain and simple. You don't need a testimony to live a good and authentic life, a life in which knowledge and understanding isn't perverted by claims of the supernatural. I find it ironic that those of the LDS faith believe that their family is "saved" when married and sealed and do all the ordinances of the Church when all you are doing is perverting your families one certain life for pretending and unauthenticity. A promotion of sociopathic behavior, that is, to tell yourselves over and over those things which are not evidently true until you finally believe the lies and then call people "lazy learners", "korihors", or 'The light of Christ has left them' to discredit, poison the well, and alienate those who leave. It is ironic that there is a scripture "For the natural man is an enemy of God..." when you rely on the social emotions and manipulate them to feel the "spirit", it is the same mechanism to get people to socially accept smoking and other drugs; the church is just a glorified cigarette salesman. Wearing magic underwear and building temples like gangs who wear similar attire such as long white t-shirts and tagging their territory with graffiti. There is no scientific evidence of a 'soul' the world would have known by now after so much understanding of the body and the brain.
Religious faith is lying
People who understand and do translations know about “commonly accepted translation" or "conventional translation". Which means if something is already translated into a language and everyone accepts it, you just use the “commonly accepted translation”.
For example if you were translating a letter into English and they quoted the rhyme “Mary Had A little Lamb” you would use the common translation. Not interpret and re-write the rhyme using your own best language.
The Bible was widely accepted, I feel even God can appreciate using the word choice and writing style of the globally accepted translation of those passages
So you're saying the seer stone gave the KJV verses (errors and all) because that was the conventional translation?
What about the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible? It changed some of the KJV verses in the BOM. Why didn't the stone give The correct translation from the start?
Another thing I am curious about regarding the mention of "beyond Jordan". Is it possible that instead of this "beyond Jordan" being referred to as the Jordan river, could it be speaking of the Country/Land of Jordan? Because If you were to leave Zebulon and Naphtali south beyond Jordan it would take you to the Red Sea. Just a thought. I think how you responded was intriguing, but just wanted to throw out another thought I had, which again i don't know if I am right or if it even makes logical sense.
Someone/Something/people could come from beyond Jordan (Red Sea) up to "her" and afflict "her".
"shall", "be" and "by" are words that are very hard to replace. What would you replace them with if you don't use them? If you attempt to replace these words or just straight up take them out then the sentence's meaning would either wildly change or just straight up doesn't make sense in English. So doesn't matter who the translators are, they kinda have to use the same words, not because they're copying from each other, but they have to if they're going to make a translation that's understandable.
Exactly!
Exactly, and in addition God knew the words in the KJV of Isaiah and could easily give those words to Joseph. The CES letter complains that Moroni couldn't have had those exact 7 words. Of course he didn't write in English, they came from God to Joseph at the time of translation.
One of the strongest points to make, which I’m sure you know already, is that the Book of Mormon, when translated, didn’t have any punctuation let alone italics. And if there are passages quoting the same thing Isaiah said, then wouldn’t it make sense for the publisher to look up those quotations and verses and put it in the book with the same punctuation and italics?
Just curious, how do we know the Book of Mormon didn’t have any punctuation or italics when initially translated? Where do we read that?
@@brooksy0ung We know this largely because of two things: First, the original printer's manuscript shows signs of the punctuation being added during its creation. Second, the work done by Royal Skousen has shown that the Book of Mormon was originally dictated, as evidenced by the remaining portions of the original manuscript. The original manuscript contains no punctuation. Royal Skousen also went through and repunctuated the text as well, according to his own understanding. I'd recommend looking into the critical text project of the Book of Mormon.
I am not yet a member of this Church. But do give you a warm heart. I watch a lot of videos on your different channels. What really strikes me is that you keep having to explain and defend the Church and the teachings of JS. That in itself is of course not wrong, but it does make me have doubts. Which Church always has to defend its slightly different positions so fiercely?
All churches in our secularized world have to as Peter put it, give a reason for the hope that is within them.
In this day, it is easy to get wrapped up in the back and forth. The message of the gospel is simple: read the Book of Mormon. Pray with a sincere heart to know if it is true. You will receive an answer. If you are truly interested, you can gain your own witness.
Mormon apostle J. Ruben Clark stated: "If we have truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not truth, it ought to be harmed." Read the CES letter for yourself, and then read the LDS church's responses to it and decide for yourself if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true and living church upon the face of the earth.
Take a step back from looking at LDS. Look at Christianity as a whole. You really don’t think that Christians are defending Christ less than the defense of Joseph Smith?
Or the defense of religion as a whole or the defense of God. It’s part and parcel of Belief of another power and his prophets. It’s always been that way.
I super appreciate this, this is super cool. This was an easier topic in the CES for me, I figured if Joseph Smith wanted to hide his usage of biblical quotes, he would never specifically make sure that the italics exactly line up. I’m not sure how the italics were added to the BOM, however, or what they mean in this context. Plus this is only a few scriptures of many.
It is possible that Nephi himself inserted 'Red Sea' in exchange for 'sea' because his audience would have been familiar with that reference.
I remember there being a translation of the Bible where the translators swapped out the word 'snow' for a type of white flower because the language they were translating the Bible into was from an African tribe that had never seen snow and did not know what it was.
Sometimes translators need to translate for their audience.
The same could be said of Nephi trying to make the words of Isaiah palatable for an audience that most likely included indigenous peoples that knew none of the geographical references of the Old World outside of those known and mentioned by the Lehites.
And as we all know - they travelled "by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea; and (they) traveled in the wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea" (1 Nephi 2:5)
It would be similar to Alma's claim to the people of Gideon that the Son of God would be born "at Jerusalem" as opposed to Bethlehem. (Alma 7:10)
Joseph Smith Jr knew that the Lord has been born in Bethlehem - so if he were the author of the Book of Mormon - for what purpose would he claim Jerusalem instead of Bethlehem?
The Lehites often mentioned Jerusalem as the land they had fled from and was subsequently destroyed - referring to the entire region not just the city proper.
Just like how Nephi may have written for those who would not have known of the Sea of Galilee Alma spoke to those who would not have known about Bethlehem - an audience of indigenous people as well as remnants of Mulek who had forgotten their language and history.
Just a possibility to think about.
This makes so much sense!
@@AndrewLarsson Thank you!
Isn't it amazing how simply criticisms of the Book of Mormon can be appeased?
All we need to do is study the Book of Mormon and ponder on it - as the Prophet Joseph Smith Jr recommended that we all do.
The Lord Jesus Christ has restored His Church and the fullness of His Gospel to the world.
Let's take this argument to the extreme. In the original source materials for the Old Testament they did not use vowels. Should we remove all the vowels from the Bible and The Book Of Mormon? Of course not.
Haha 😂 ... great comment 👏
I agree with you 💯 Thank you for all your hard work to bring light where people want to bring dark.
I'm not even Christian and the argument is stupid.
The New Testament contains many of those same kinds of errors in it's quotations of the Old Testament.
The difference being that the Book of Mormon is in English and the New Testament is in Greek.
Thank you for your channel! There must be "opposition in all things," so thanks for putting out the truth to balance out all the lies out there!
To be honest, Ive heard next to nothing about the CES letter (keeping up with all the claims and issues can be exhausting) but I feel now i both understand and apprciate both why he write the letter and also that questions with an attitude of faith can be answered.
Keep it up!
^_^ Nice
Help me understand this :
Joseph F Smith said :
Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or nonessential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false.
Joseph F. Smith
( Journal of Discourses volume 20: Discourses 4)
What does he mean by that? Is it because he was practicing POLYGAMY and he said so, to justify his lifestyle ?
@@apologetiquesinvestigations great question! My thought is anyone trying to justify behavior that is wrong is simply immature. Is there another explanation? For sake of argument, let's say he is Truly a prophet, and him making that statement refers to a celestial principle: does that require me to do anything or believe something that goes against what is said in scripture? Off the bat, I don't think so. What do you think?
Tbh you aren't really doing your own thinking though unless you actually go and read the letter
@@jonbaker476 That's fair, I should read it if I'm following along with this series. I have found it easy to run down the endless rabbit holes people will claim against the doctrines and events of the church and sometimes stepping back and simply allowing my mind to refocus on my testimony is necessary.
@@Called-to-Live ^_^ Don't be deceive, if you follow a liars as a teacher and prophet, you are in danger !
Jesus-Christ say " For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders ; insomuch that, if it were possible, THEY SHALL DECEIVE THE VERY ELECT
Matthew 24 : 24.
4:37 Not all the italicized text is in the Book of Mormon. In most instances, it is not present. But, what is any of this italicized text doing in the Book of Mormon? Well, Jeremy, IT'S MAKING THE ENGLISH TEXT MORE READABLE. Is God not allowed to translate as men would translate? And what about the substancial additional text in 2Nephi 27 (Isaiah 29) Can't say that was copied. Jeremy is cherry picking, His accusation is not holistic.
There is a BYU podcast called Y Religion. In one, they reviewed Royal Skousen's research on the original manuscripts and they said that Royal hypothesized that Joseph Smith did not translate but transmitted a translation from the Holy Ghost. We are taught that God teaches us according to our understanding, so even if the italicized portions remained, that could be God's choice and evidence that the italicized words do not make a material difference in understanding the purpose of the verse. Turning upside down a 400 year old translation could be problematic in establishing a legitimate church, even in Joseph Smith's time.
Great deep dive! Can’t wait for the next one
If the church had been honest about what it taught about church doctrine and history, there never would have been a CES letter!
Nah. I disagree. People just need to chill
Excellent! I had been wondering about the “Red Sea” reference.
This is very interesting. I have found that Sandra Tanner has a lot of great info on this subject. I encourage all active LDS members to go and listen to her full story.
This topic is so interesting and deep. One thing that stands out to me if the levels of translation done with Isaiah. Isaiah gains understanding from God, writes it down -> Nephi translates it himself into reformed Egyptian, writes it on the brass plates -> Joseph translates the brass plates, Oliver writes it on parchment -> the printer sets the type for the printing. That's 4 levels of translation of the word of God.
Nephi was much more familiar with the Red Sea as that is where his family lived and traveled when they left Jerusalem. When Nephi added the Isaiah portion onto the brass plates, he was so far removed from the Jerusalem era, maybe he added Red Sea to the plates as that was a place he would have had much history. The Red Sea travels would have been a time everyone reflected on as that was their home for a time prior to Ishmael's passing.
It may sound odd but the fact that Isaiah is such a large part of the Book of Mormon is a huge part of my witness of it's truth. I have difficulty understanding Isaiah, I don't gain that much from him. If I were to make a book about something from the old testament, I would take an amazing story like Joseph being sold into Egypt. But Nephi was not interested in a "story for the ages" instead he wanted to testify of the coming Christ, for this reason he used Isaiah who Lehi obviously learned from.
It is provably false.
NO truth: Book of Abraham published with 3 facsimiles taken from an ancient papyrus. The book is a funerary papyrus showing scenes from the Egyptian Book of the Dead. In Facsimiles Nos. 1 & 3, Smith misidentifies everything depicted. "LDS and non-LDS Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham" Quote from LDS OFFICIAL WEB PAGE
NO trace of the “Two million Jaredites slain” (Ether 15:2), with iron, brass, breast-plates, shields, and armor. It would be impossible for these millions of dead warriors in armor to leave no trace.
NO trace of the great city Zarahemla- it would be impossible for a city the size of Zarahemla (Alma 5:2; D&C 125:3) to leave no trace.
NO trace of Jewish dna found in any Indian burial ground anywhere in the Americas from time period of BOM. Thomas W. Murphy, (Mormon scholar, DNA researcher):“We are in a dilemma, the genetic evidence shows that American Indians are not Hebrews, they are not Israelites. The Book of Mormon is not true.” John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 2005
NO temple like Solomon's described in 2 Nephi 5:16 has ever been found yet biblical temple is easily seen in Jerusalem. If the temple Nephi describes ever existed it could not disappear.
NO Nephite "reformed Egyptian" writings ever found anywhere as it is not a real language anywhere in the world.
NO cities mentioned in the BOM have ever been located (none of 38) anywhere. It would be impossible for them to disappear unless they never existed.
NO evidence: "The whole land was covered with buildings, and the people were as numerous, as it were the sand of the sea." Yet not one ever located. (Mormon 1:7) IMPOSSIBLE for highly advanced civilizations (Jaredites, Nephites) & MILLIONS of people to have vanished.
The BOM speaks of sheep, swine, silk, wool clothing & elephants existing in the Americas when they did not. 1 Ne.13:7; Alma 4:6; Ether 9:17 and 10:24 These were brought to America centuries later by Europeans.
NO wheat, no goats, no metal smelting furnaces, no metal armor, no steel swords, no cattle, no chariot parts, no brass (Mosiah 8:10) no evidence of the listed Kings in BOM, no Jewish relics or Jewish Temples from supposed Jews, no metal plates like Nephites supposedly used, no middle eastern seeds growing, "which were brought from the land of Jerusalem ... and grew exceedingly" 1 Nephi 18:24
There is NO archaeological, anthropological, topological, linguistic, botanical or dna evidence to support the Book of Mormon. LDS anthropologist Dee Green: “The first myth we need to eliminate is that BOM archaeology exists” conceding 20 years of research “left us empty-handed” (Green 1969 p. 77)
CAN WE IGNORE THE LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR THE THE BOOK OF MORMON AND JUST TRUST OUR HEARTS AS TO THE TRUTH OF IT EVEN THOUGH IT CONFLICTS WITH THE BIBLE? NO!
D&C Section 9:8-9 - tell us that if something is true it will make our "bosom burn" and we will FEEL that it is right. Maroni 10:4 says: "he will manifest the truth of it unto you"
The Bible warns us against this subjective type of truth test. Why? Because we have a sinful nature that can be deceived. Proverbs 28:26 "He that trusts in his own (bosom) heart is a FOOL."
The Scriptures, however, are infallible and can never be wrong (John 17:17; Psalm 119:128; 33:4; 19:8; Romans 3:4).
This is why the Bible frequently urges us to study and meditate on God's word. 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV "STUDY ... rightly dividing the word of TRUTH." Acts 17:11 "EXAMINE THE SCRIPTURES to see if what said is TRUE". 1John 4:1 says: "BELIEVE NOT EVERY SPIRIT, ... because MANY FALSE PROPHETS have gone out into the world."
Mormonism claims the bible was corrupted to justify Joseph Smith's changing of the biblical, eternal God into an evolving, created god, who is not all powerful and is one of an endless number of gods . However, this is a PROVABLY FALSE claim.
The Claim: In the BOM, the prophet Nephi has a vision the Bible was corrupted and "plain and precious parts" were removed after the 12 apostles and after the formation of the “great and abominable church” (1 Nephi 13:26-29). Most Mormons believe this is the Catholic Church formed in the 4th century. Nephi claims this church was founded by the Devil (1 Nephi 14:3). So let’s objectively examine the Bible & BOM.
BIBLE: The Dead Sea Scrolls have been dated to as early as 350 BC. One is the Great Isaiah Scroll, which is the oldest known copy of the Book of Isaiah dated to 180 BC.
Do ANY ancient scrolls show Smith's "uncorrupted" version of scripture? NO! Yet they would if the scripture was later corrupted after the 12 apostles died as Smith and Nephi said.
Also, if they had been corrupted, Jesus would have corrected scripture instead of affirming it! Jesus sd:“ I told you EVERYTHING written about me in the Law of Moses, the Books of the Prophets, and in the Psalms had to happen.” (Luke 24:44-46)
Scripture is the same today as it was 2,100+ years ago with only minor spelling and punctuation differences. Joseph Smith was wrong. These scrolls pre-dated Catholics, and are Jewish scrolls and the BOM says the Jews had the Scriptures in their "purity". 1Nephi 13:25
LDS Apologist Wayne Ham admitted the Isaiah scroll does not support the the BOM. Apologist Dr. Sidney B. Sperry, of BYU, said the Dead Sea Scrolls do not help the case for the BOM. BYU Professor Joseph F. McConkie: "Rather than Joseph Smith as Found in Ancient Manuscripts, it ought be Joseph Smith as Lost in Ancient Manuscripts.” (Religious Studies Center, 1984)
IS THE GOD OF THE BOOK OF MORMON THE SAME ONE AS IN THE BIBLE? NO! In the LDS Church’s 147th Conf., Gen Authority Bernard P. Brockbank said: the Christ followed by Mormons is NOT THE CHRIST followed by traditional Christianity. (Ensign, May 1977 p. 26)
"Before me NO god was formed, nor shall there be ANY after me.” (Isaiah 43:10) If Mormonism is true, then God could not make this claim, for he was just a man at one point; nor could he claim that no gods would come after him, for that is the goal of LDS members.
Like Joseph Smith, this was the goal of Satan, to be like God and have worshipers. "I will exalt my throne above the stars of God ... I will be like the Most High”’ (Isaiah 14:12-14)
The new testament has not been corrupted either. See the book of John. Smith changed it to make Jesus a created being. Research a 1900 year old papyri known as the Bodmer Papyri of the book of John. (written 150 AD, around the Apostle John's time)
John 1:1 "In the BEGINNING was the WORD and the WORD was WITH God and the WORD WAS God." ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΚΑΙ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΗΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΕΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΘΕΟΣ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ (look up this ancient Greek yourself on google)
John 1:1 Joseph Smith translation: "In the beginning was the GOSPEL preached through the Son. And the GOSPEL was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God." Smith's Jesus is no longer God in the flesh but the biblical Jesus is: "God was manifest in the flesh" 1Tim. 3:16 KJV
There are 4,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Some go back to 350 AD and NONE support Joseph Smith's claims that the bible of today has been corrupted.
Papyrus fragments exist of the New Testament dated to 175 AD and show that the new testament has NOT been "corrupted". (New Testament Docs: Are They Reliable? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967 pp. 15-17)
The manuscript and archeological evidence for the BIBLE is the GREATEST in antiquity. I pray you know the true Jesus and not Joseph Smith's exalted man from another planet who is not eternal, not all powerful, not perfect but evolving, and was polygamous.
God is much greater than the humanoid of Mormonism and NOT just ONE OF AN ENDLESS NUMBER OF EVOLVING GODS.
Jesus said ALL scripture will NOT fade away but "many wolves in sheep's clothing" will come trying to add to the word. Mathew 7:15 Joseph Smith changed Jesus, the Father and taught you can become a GOD.
It hurts my heart to see Mormons fall for the lie that we can become God when there is only one eternal God found in the bible.
"The only men who become Gods, even the sons of Gods are those that enter into polygamy." (Brigham Young) Journal of Discourses 11 p.269
Apostle Orson Pratt, in The Seer, page 172, “the great Messiah who was the founder of the Christian religion was a Polygamist…the Messiah chose to take upon himself his seed; and by marrying many wives, … The son followed the example of his Father"
God gave us critical thinking & logical reasoning for a reason, which is why he does tell us to EXAMINE and TEST what we are being taught for TRUTH. The bible withstands the truth test. Joseph Smith's version fails the truth test. It's your eternity, study it for yourself. God bless.
" Isaiah gains understanding from God, writes it down -> Nephi translates it himself into reformed Egyptian, writes it on the brass plates -> Joseph translates the brass plates, Oliver writes it on parchment -> the printer sets the type for the printing. That's 4 levels of translation of the word of God."
And yet we are told that JS translated the BOM by looking into a rock placed into a hat, that he saw the words in English as through they were written out, and then merely read the words he saw to his scribes. He would occasionally pause to make sure the scribe was writing things and spelling correctly. To me that sounds like a very precise revelatory process.
@@senorbb2150 Elaborate hoax. There was no brass in America at that time. Nor was there 1600's era English, nor has there ever been a language known as "reformed Egyptian".
@@brettpinion4233Oh I am aware of those issues. I am in no way a believer in the veracity of the BOM. I was pointing out that the apologists will sometimes claim that the translation was a loose process when in actuality Joseph and his scribes do not describe it as such.
I could sense your sarcasm. I was just adding to the it. I cannot understand those who choose to ignore the indefensible.@@senorbb2150
Love it. In my opinion, God is in control of the process. Who’s to say, those that inserted the italic were inspired. If a person is do dead set to leave the church, you can reason out any deception you want, just as much as you can reason out for believing. Keep up the good work. Added thought: When were the Italics officially added to the Book of Mormon? The original first printing?, or discovered later and then added? In reality, it probably wouldn't matter. If it was good enough for God then it would mean that it was already correct in the assumption for putting in the italic fill-ins. No matter what, you can not discount the overall message of warning to us in these last days and its alignment of truth regarding many doctrines. Either way, these are evidences of things seen, faith is based on the evidence of things not seen. A testimony of the spirit.
You guys are awesome! Love your guys faithfulness 😎🤙🏼♥️
I think you guys are on the right track with the italicized words. The explanation for Red Sea has some issues and there are better ones that hold logical consistency better preserve the integrity of the text.
I'm going to attack the premise: the italicised words are _not_ words added by the translator. The KJV was translated by a group of translators, not a single translator. The italicised words are those which were not fully agreed upon by the group. In these cases, the words that appear were the _most supported_ of the options, and even then, they kept the italics to denote the lack of consensus.
Really? Do you have an sources on this? That is super interesting!
I think people should read the CES letter for themselves, as the they would the Book of Mormon.
Basically the LDS Church tries to fight against the internet, which is not possible. They could only win this battle by shutting down the internet. Indoctrinating young members about the evil of Wikipedia will not cut it in the 21st century.
They can't. The prophet said only to believe in church sources...
@@xxxgabaxxx Yeah. I have also talked to members who are almost phobic about Wikipedia.
@@xxxgabaxxx I've always been under the impression that they encourage you to question things not linger but genuinely question things if you have issues.
In regards to the "Red" Sea reference being in the Book of Mormon...I can't say this is THE answer, but perhaps a possibility as far as I have been able to study this out:
In Isaiah, the connection is drawn between how Zebulun and Naphtali were at first "lightly afflicted" (rabbinical sources reference this to mean the infiltration and conquests of Tiglath-pileser in 2 Kings 15:29) and the "more greviously afflicted" referenced the Israelites being carried away captive by said Assyrian king. Again, I can't prove this beyond a doubt, but the Red Sea was a frequently used trade route in the old world, connecting Egypt, Arabia, Babylon, and other major kingdoms. It is POSSIBLE then that the Assyrian army could have carried their Israel captives south "beyond Jordan" after conquering Galilee and transported them through the Red Sea trade routes, around the Arabian peninsula, and up through the Persian gulf and carried them captive into Assyria through that route. (Prisoner transport likely would have been easier by sea travel than by marching hundreds of miles on foot). The mistreatment and harsh living conditions of the Israelite captives that were being carried away could be the grevious vexation talked about here in the records. So the Red Sea was and is not an unreasonable location to be mentioned here given it's importance and frequent use as an ancient trade route.
As for Jesus not "correcting" the record when quoting it in Matthew (if we assume the BOM is correct by adding "Red") well, first, Jesus himself didn't quote Isaiah here, the writer of Matthew's gospel did, using it as a sign or evidence to the Jews of scriptural prophecy being fulfilled in Christ through His ministry. The writers of the gospels drew from the scriptural record they had access to, so if "Red" had been omitted at some point in the past, the New Testament authors wouldnt have included it. And even if they did believe there to be a discrepancy, chances are they wouldnt have bothered to correct it as it has little bearing on the point of the verse when understood in the context with which they are employing it. Matthew's gospel is and was uniquely suited to attempt convincing the Jews of Jesus' Messiahship. If the gospel writer were to deviate from the commony known verbaiage of the scriptural text by adding a previously omitted word, the Jewish leaders of the time would have instantly noticed the variation and likely would have called him a deviant or deemed him unlearned in the law and prophets and riddiculed and dismissed his message entirely, merely because his quote was not 100% exact. In this case, exactitude to Jewish scriptural text would have been necessary, and given the specific point of the quotation, the lack of, or addition of "Red" makes no difference.
Lastly, the BOM record written by Nephi would have been directly influenced by the brass plates, and Nephi likely would have copied Isaiah verbatim from the plates themselves. This being the case, the brass plates were (at the very LEAST) compiled around 600BC when Nephi, Lehi and family left Jerusalem (and very likely older than that) making Nephi's record older than any and all manuscripts we have in our posession, including the dead sea scrolls, making it, in my opinion, the most reliable of the accounts. I can only assume later scriptural editions in the old world (after the brass plates timeline) omitted "Red" and subsequent copies of those versions continued that omission.
With all of this in consideration, I see no problem with the addition of "Red" from the Book of Mormon record.
In all of the "evidences" I've heard attempting to discredit the Book of Mormon, up to and including the CES Letter, I can only feel my faith growing stronger...Thank you for this channel!
Were the italics included in the first hand written manuscripts of Oliver Cowdrey? If so, how did he convey this being a handwritten manuscript? Were these added later by an editor when taking them to print when setting the printing plates? Was it the editor that did it aligning it with their own current Bible as a reference guide so that they would match?
I very much doubt that in handwritten script they would have italicized, just because I'm not certain that the various scribes would have thought to/known how to mark that clearly in handwritten scripts.
I know that EB Grandin added punctuation. One of my college teachers called him "The first editor of the Book of Mormon." If that's so, I think it's definitely possible that he matched the punctuation and formatting to the book of Isaiah in his own copy of the Bible. Maybe it saved him time to have laid out already in another book, for reference.
When I think of the Red Sea reference, I imagine that the reason it is there is similar to why they say that Christ was born in Jerusalem, even though he was born in Bethlehem. When generations have moved from their homeland, much like many citizens of the United States and their relationship with England, they know generalities about the homeland and use those generalities to describe “home”. Most people know about he Irish Sea, but there is also the Celtic Sea and the Inner Sea in the same area.
Hello!
Thanks for this channel. How do I get in contact with you? I have something to share with you.
Best
Hans
(lds)
Hayden@thestickofjoseph.com and jackson@thestickofjoseph.com
Unfortunately, this video does not actually resolve the issues it sets out to investigate from the CES Letter. Instead, Hayden seems to acknowledge BofM errors exist and then attempts to blame them on Joseph Smith, his scribes, or the printer of the BofM without providing any evidence to support his hypothesis.
He does, however, provide a good explanation for how translation works in the real world, but he fails to mention that the LDS Church's official position on the translation of the BofM, according to the Gospel Topics Essays: Book of Mormon Translation, is that God controlled the translation, not Joseph Smith. So, it would have been God, who the LDS Church claims is "perfect", "omniscient", and "omnipotent", who chose which words to make appear on the stone in the hat. Joseph simply "dictated" the words that appeared on the stone to his scribes and they wrote them down.
So, it's reasonable to conclude that if the BofM was translated by the “gift and power of God" and Joseph Smith simply “read aloud the English words that appeared”, as claimed by the LDS Church, then any errors in the translation from "Reformed Egyptian" to English would be God's errors. Especially since, once again, the God who controlled the translation is "perfect", "omniscient", and "omnipotent". Clearly, according to LDS teachings, God is more than capable of ensuring that the entire translation process from Him, to Joseph, to the scribes, and to the printing press went flawless. Especially if this was going to be His canonized scripture for His chosen people. After all, if God can make translated words from an unknown language appear on a stone in a hat, why couldn't He also make sure the scribes wrote down the correct words and that the printer printed the correct words? Is the LDS God capable of making words appear on a stone in a hat but incapable of ensuring that the words He made appear on the stone were written down and printed correctly?
Then ask yourself again, is bible has no error if it is the word of God? Do you believe Joseph Smith is the most intelligent person on earth? Can he not make any mistakes? Is he perfect? Is he All-knowing?
@@reecek7358 You asked, "Then ask yourself again, is bible has no error if it is the word of God?"
The Bible has errors too. And, no one is claiming that God controlled the translation process of the Bible, unlike with the BofM.
You asked, "Do you believe Joseph Smith is the most intelligent person on earth?"
No, I don't believe he was the most intelligent person on earth.
You asked, "Can he not make any mistakes?"
Yes, Joseph can and did make mistakes. He even admitted he made mistakes in his life.
You asked, "Is he perfect?"
No. Joseph was not perfect.
You asked, "Is he All-knowing?"
No. Joseph was not all-knowing.
If you are trying to argue that Joseph's fallibility is the cause of errors, then you misunderstood my point.
Hopefully, the following explanation will be easier to understand:
According to LDS Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, the following things are true:
1) God is omnipotent
2) God is omniscient
3) God is not the author of confusion, nor is His house a house of confusion
4) God's work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
5) God controlled the translation process of the BofM [i.e. God chose words that appeared on the stone[s] and Joseph simply read the words aloud to his scribes; God also removed Joseph’s ability to translate for a time, meaning Joseph could not translate based on his own ability without divine assistance.]
Therefore, if each of those truth claims are true, then:
1) any errors/mistranslations in the BofM are there purposefully through God's action or inaction.
2) any resulting confusion about any BofM errors/mistranslations is purposeful through God's action or inaction.
Just to be clear, there have been many changes to the BofM text since its original publication, not counting punctuation additions which one could expect for an orally dictated book.
Questions for you:
Can all those LDS Church truth claims really be true simultaneously and God not be responsible for any errors/mistranslations in the BofM?
If they can, how?
If they can't, which ones can't be true and why?
Another possibility that no one is mentioning is that they just went back and compared the parts of the text that are quotes with the Bible so that they did match up.
The funny thing is that if it was very different from the Bible then critics would have pointed that out too.
If we apply the same critiques of the Bible, we would have to reject it also based on some internal inconsistencies.
Ultimately, it comes down to the total impact of the B of M not just a few minor anachronisms. Some of the most faith promoting, Christ testifying sermons in print are in the B of M.
In Spanish, the verb “interpretar” (interpret) is often used where we would say “translate” in English. It’s a much more accurate description of the way we express an idea in one language to another. It is very much a subjective interpretation on the part of the translator.
Sticky Jospeh for life and Paul brothers for eternity! Please do a segment on the 10 lost tribes under the ice in Greenland, my dad saw them on his mission, he could see city lights under there!
U missed the point, the CES letter was questioning why the brass plates would contain the words and errors of 16th Century translators. You should review the work of LDS Discussions for a deeper dive into the anachronisms found in the BofM.
Look into how translation works, across the board. There is a spectrum of methods. There are sayings and phrases that cannot be literally translated from an ancient language into ours, so modern equivalents are often heavily considered and then used. God prepared a holy work of scripture for us specifically in this last day- He would want it to be more comprehensible than otherwise.
@@danielburns4483why do you call Joseph Smith a translator? He read off the stone what allegedly god put there. There shouldn’t be Joseph’s vocabulary because it was done by “the gift and power of God”.
@@dr33776 go and receive your own personal revelation. the Lord works with what we have. when Moses parted the Red Sea, it revealed the land beneath the sea- it didn’t place any on top of it. Who am I to tell God what He must do?
I thought that the Book of Mormon was written in and translated from reformed Egyptian, with an understanding of the Hebrew text. Which would mean the prophet Mormon had skills and the Holy Ghost, like he was a prophet of God. So far I’m not shaken. Thank you for putting in the time to go through this, it really helps. I’m a big fan of The Stick of Joseph!
LDS Discussions is an excellent resource for the issues found in the Book of Mormon.
These are terrific videos. Would you be able to address something that I've wondered about? In the NT during the sermon on the mount. there is a JST that changes it, however in 3 Nephi, that JST is not found and the verses do match the NT verses without the JST. I get that this could be a simple error of man but I have often wondered how Joseph would have changed the wording of this during his translation of the Bible but it would not have been found during the translation of the BOM. It isn't a testimony breaker by any means but is something I have wondered about often and always comes up when I read 3 Nephi.
For example, 3 Nephi 12:48 vs. Matt 5:46; or 3 Nephi 13:12 vs. Matt 6:13; or 3 Nephi 13:25 vs. Matt 6:25.
I've thought that Christ was maybe speaking to 2 different audiences so there could be variations tailored to each, but that would be odd since some of the changes alter the meaning (in terms of the teaching). And in the first example, it seems that the JST changes it for the better as if it was the original meaning by the Savior then why would it not be captured in the translation of the BOM?
Just curious and would love to hear your thoughts on this. I hesitated putting this type of comment here as it can invite a lot of vitriol but didn't know if there was a better way to contact you or bring it up.
Thanks!
It’s very simple, he copied those verses from the KJV Bible into the Book of Mormon
My theory for a way that KJV inserts have made their way into the original BoM is that after a rapid translation they wanted an equally quick publish. In order to do that, while editing the shorthand for the publisher's manuscript, whenever they found familiar text to the KJV they simply copied it, thus saving time.
"If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?" Moroni's promise is that we should "ask God"... not write letters of descent.
If I were a doubting Mormon, and not just a Mormon, looking for an excuse to show the letter wrong, this would not qwell my doubts
f you were a doubting Mormon, you would be looking for an excuse to show the letter right.
Because the CES is solid.
I went on a mission with that dude he was an elder to the deaf. He was alright lived in a pad with him for a stretch kinda a know it all and he didnt seeem to be all to excited about being out there. But i never would of thought he would author the ces letter. He was way more obedient then i ever was. Obedient? what am i a dog? Jeremy raises valid questions but he also goes too far in the ces letter.
Call me crazy, but for a plagiarism to be "Word for Word", I think the phrase that's plagiarized needs to be "word for word", not almost the same, not moving words around and not adding words like "Red".🤣
What about when Joseph Smith changes the Bible with his JST? He corrects, edits, removes, and adds, words and verses to and from the Bible. He "corrected" Bible verses that were found to be word for word the same as the B.O.M. Did they only need correcting from the Bible?
The Red Sea error could have come from when the Book of Mormon was compiled or when it was later translated it by Joseph Smith. There are many errors like this in the Bible caused by the writer or translator.
Would be good to use the Joseph smith papers online to view original photos of BoM pages as well to see what was originally published. Also, the LDS uses 2013 edition of KJV which was not the version Joseph had.
We did to double check that there weren’t any inconsistencies, but the original manuscript doesn’t exist of those verses
Awesome Episode !! I don't know if this helps or is Exactly true, BUT when I researched JST translation process that Sidney Rigdon & Joseph Smith used a Phinney Bible , when tranlating corrections to the Bible. I did not know of this Bible, but that other Bible versions were used in young America.
Im sure you checked FAIR, when looking up the Red Sea stuff, but yeah theres a couple alternatives. 1. It could just be a scribal error somewhere along the path, like you covered. 2. It could actually be Nephi "likening" Isaiah to his family's afflictions while traveling near the borders of the Red Sea. 3. The Kings Highway is a path anciently called The Way of the Red Sea, because it traveled along the shore of the Red Sea and went up into Galilee.
Any of these 3 options are possible with our current evidence, and is still consistent with the Book of Mormon being an authentic translation of an ancient record. Whether its a mistake or not doesnt have to lead to the book being made up or false like the critics want us to believe.
Mic dropped!!!!
RE #2: That's along what I thought of when the Red Sea text was discussed in the video. But more along the lines that it could have been Nephi's mistake since so many life changing experiences happened as Lehi was camped by the borders of the Red Sea.
Similar to the Christ birth in Bethlehem vs Jerusalem idea. Great points
One other idea to consider is there are some studies that talk about Moses and the Children of Israel crossing the Red Sea as being practically impossible (logistically speaking).
But Bible scholars have discovered a “Reed Sea” a bit closer to where the Israelites most likely camped and probably crossed there..
my point? Well it could have been a different “Red Sea” at the time and have since changed the name. Or it could have been a “Reed, Reid, Read (or any other slightly different spelling) of a Sea.
Bottom line. Just like my unconscious bias makes things like this strengthen my testimony. Someone not living the gospel will likely take these things to validate their leaving church and discounting any good that it brings to the world.
Good 👍 job, I like the "bite size" pieces not too much info to comprehend. Thanks
Love this! I look forward to your series.
I wish you luck in your analysis, but as an outsider I have noticed that the followers of your Church do not have the best critical thinking skills, ahem!
I like your explanation of translation. But let me take it one step further. When Joseph is translating, he’s reading the reformed Egyptian and trying to express the ideas that he reads there in English. If he comes across an idea that exactly matches what he’s been reading in the King James version of the Bible, it only makes sense that he would express that same idea in with the same words that are in his head from reading the King James version of the Bible. Love what you all are doing.
The other alternative is, they recognised chapters and verses from the bible as they were being translated and, where they could, just lifted the verses or chapters from the bible and inserted it in the transcript obviously with a few changes here and there if the gold plates differed slightly.
I think you presented well in this video. That only critiques I would have, which may not effect your overall position that much is:
1) Jeremy's point was not that the filler words should be absent in the Book of Mormon, but that they shouldn't always be the same as the choices made in the KJV.
2) Your hypothesis that Crowdery made scribal errors in the transcription process doesn't work because the story isn't that Joseph just dictated 10-15 words at a time but that he dictated what appeared on his seer stone, while peering into his hat. If the scribe got it wrong, Joseph wouldn't see the next sentence until the scribe repaired the error.
Though I am no Mormon, I would say a better hypothesis would be that the written BoM had to then be typesetted for printing, and it would be more likely that if a mistake was made, it would have been the error of the typesetter who accidently added the "Red" to the text due to expectation bias. The problem here is that you would expect the error to be corrected in later additions. Was it?
Yes.my testimony is even stronger. That the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is true and its teachings!!!
Even the ones about black people being descended from Cain, and native americans turning white if they're righteous enough?
well that was an entertaining comments section 😂 ... great video Stick of Joseph 👏
I applaud your efforts. Thank you
It would make perfectly good sense that heavenly father and Jesus Christ would be sharing the same message. Why wouldn’t they share the same message for the tribes of northern Israel and the tribes of southern Israel.?
Much of this is explained in Royal Skousens Book of Mormon research. Actually I think most members are not acquainted with this marvelous research. I have found so many answers to questions about the book of Mormon by listening to Brother Skousens presentations!
Great video! I actually disagree with you on this point, but appreciate the time you took to put this information together.
I think something else that needs to be considered is looking at the original translation of the book of Mormon, and see if those italicized words are on the original translation , because, as you know, there were various editions of the book of Mormon Which had changes made to them
I think it’s also important to take in the totality of the work that is called “the book of Mormon“
There’s a great video out there on Mormon discussions podcast, discussing the tight versus loose translation, and it really gives an observer the opportunity to see what the differences are between those two types of translations
Because there is a quote somewhere that says Joseph Smith did not move on the next phrase until the Spirit confirmed that Joseph had it, correct. Well, this clearly wouldn’t work if there was so many little changes made through the various editions of the book of Mormon, some of them quite doctrinal, but most just small little changes here and there,
But it still begs the question of if the Spirit told him he had it right, and he moved onto the next phrase,did the Spirit not get it right?
Well I would recommend before doubting if the spirit confirmed the words to Joseph, I would try to find this quote that makes the claim and then evaluate who said it, when they said it, how intimately they were involved in the translation process, and why they said it. Then we can discuss what is being claimed and its implications.
It's really important to learn about how language and translation work.
Royal Skousen has addressed the question of italicized words too.
Keep up the good work, brother. All I've heard about the CES Letter so far has not impressed me at all regarding the honesty or intellect of its author. I'm quite resolved to dismiss it as a foolish and blind guide, but I'm still ready to enjoy a detailed dressing down of it.
Believe me, the CES letter presents much more serious concerns regarding mormonism than quibbles about translation. And the CES author's character being constantly tarnished is a shameful display of the fallacy of "poisoning the well". Resorting to that is just an admission of Mormon apologists weak arguments.
@@senorbb2150 Boring.
@@TrebizondMusic-cm6fp OK then. Whatever you do, don't actually read the CES letter yourself. Never read anything that would challenge the church's faithful narrative. Just let faithful apologists like "The Stick of Judah" do your thinking for you.
@@senorbb2150 Tell me more, o wise one.
@@TrebizondMusic-cm6fp Nah. You can just remain a willful ignoramus.
12:00 Don't dismiss this as an apparant mistake in the Book of Mormon. JST Isaiah 9:1 also says the Red Sea. The source material for the Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon is the Brass Plates which were written in Egyptian and so likely have many variations from the Masoretic text. The source material for the JST is inspiration from the Holy Ghost. These variations indicate that there is further meaning to what Isaiah was prophesying.
That is not true from what I just researched. There is no JST of Isaiah 9:1. The only isaiah verses in the JST are from chapters 29 and 42.
Actually there's more Isaiah in the JST than just chapters 29 and 42. You need to get the entire JST and not just the selections of the JST that are in the appendix (This is the thrid time I'm posting my response. Dunno why my comment keeps getting taken down.)@@thestickofjoseph
Wait... You're telling me Joseph didn't translate on the stones/interpreters, prepared for him, and by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost, making it the most correct book on earth - he was able to kinda do his own thing in translating it?
That’s exactly the current apologetic, I don’t know why they claim Joseph is the “translator”, he didn’t know “reformed Egyptian”, he was reading off a rock what God allegedly put on it. The errors would be gods but the apologists won’t go there and say that Joseph used his own words.
I almost converted from Christian to Mormon. I was willing to overlook a lot of the things that seem fake because the church itself seems to do good. However, the book of Abraham forced me to not. I couldn’t join something that is blatantly fake and pretend it’s scripture. If it were just the Book of Mormon I probably would’ve joined. The BoM is actually a fantastic document. Id categorize it as Christian fiction and it’s very good. Worth the read.
You guys are awesome for this!!
Good work, brother, keep it up. Members need to understand the strength of the keystone! What an amazing book!
I really do appreciate the effort here, but I feel like you're deliberately skipping the meat of the argument so that you can point out holes in the stuff that is secondary.
For instance, missing the word "her" in the word-for-word claim doesn't immediately discredit the fundmental claim, it just means that the claim of it being "word-for-word" isn't accurate. The copying of the text is still there and the claim that JS is using modern manuscripts to fake older ones is still a valid claim. Also, if JS was making his own modern translation of the text why would he be translating it into 1500s and 1600s European English? If he were truly translating it on his own, shouldn't it match the English that he actually used? You can't discount that entire argument by saying he was wrong about it being wor-for-word. With this and with the whole "red sea" issue. It is possible to plagiarize something but also try and add your own words in there. That doesn't mean that the claim is false. If anything it points to the fact that JS was trying in some ways to make it seem like he knew more about the actual text than was written. He just happened to be wrong. Both arguments are valid and definitely don't "cancel each other out" like you suggest.
"Apparent mistakes" when supposedly reading word for word from an ancient document is just not a good excuse. Adding Red Sea to the manuscript is him making it up and not realizing that he's making that error. What it really seems to point to is that JS isn't well-versed in the locations and was guessing or trying to pull the details from memory to try and make them fit. Also the fact that the Red Sea is so far away from where the bulk of the story is taking place should definitely cause some concern. There isn't any need to name a particular sea at all, so it would be odd for them to try and get specific with it especially for a sea that doesn't ever get mentioned in the actual source text he's supposedly pulling from.
This seems like you're trying to verify your initial reactions and presuppositions rather than looking at it from the perspective of someone that wants to learn. So you're reading it, then trying to find reasons why it's wrong. When that doesn't happen you find a secondary issue with what's written (like grammar or hyperbole) and use that instead as the overall counterpoint. I don't mean to be rude, but that seems disingenuous. You have to accept that hyperbole exists and not argue against that, but rather argue against that actual claim that's being made.
I don't think 2 Nephi 19:1 is mistaken in stating Red Sea. It's detailing Israel from north to south. North is land of Zebulon and Nephtali and south is Red Sea. The Sea of Galilea is right next to Nephtali's land. Today the entire country of Israel's borders are what 2 Nephi 19:1 details. I don't think that's coincidence. I think it's written for our day
Love your guys’ work
Happy you do! Enjoy the video!
Great video as always! Thank you!
My reading:
The “way of the Red Sea” does not mean that Isaiah is referring to the Red Sea’s location anymore than the Milwaukee Avenue in Chicago refers to Milwaukee being located in Chicago. Just like Milwaukee Avenue refers to an avenue that heads to Milwaukee from Chicago, the “way of the Red Sea” refers to that path.
If you Google the “Way of the Red Sea,” non-LDS sources describe the path Israelites took through the Red Sea to enter Israel.
Galilee was a region, with its northern boundaries up by the Sea of Galilee and its southern boundaries towards the Dead Sea. I cannot find a map indicating what area would be considered the Galilee of the nations, which other translations refer to as “Galilee of the Gentiles.” Because east of Jordan, the Sea of Galilee, and the region of Galilee were areas occupied by other peoples; I believe that this area is probably the “Galilee of nations” or “Galilee of the Gentiles.” That location is also supported by the geography laid out by Isaiah.
With that understanding, please re-read the verse:
“Nevertheless, the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphtali, and afterwards did more grievously afflict by the way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations.”
In this verse, Isaiah indicates that the dimness (which I believe to be a reference to the destruction from Assyria) was light in the lands of Naphtali and Zebulon but worse once you cross the River Jordan in the Galilee of Gentiles along the way of the Red Sea (which is where Israel crossed the Jordan River near Jericho towards the southern limits of the Galilee region).
I don’t think this is an apologist's take. This is a literal, plain-reading of the verse.
This specific reference to the “way of the Red Sea” as opposed to the more-general “way of the sea adds” credibility to the Book of Mormon. It would require an understanding of Israel geography to know that the path from the Red Sea that the Israelites in leaving Egypt ended (in relation to the lands of Zebulon and Naphtali) beyond Jordan at the southern portion of the Galilee of nations. There is no indication Jospeh Smith had that understanding.