Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[Marcus]

Dunno. You tell me.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says that Emma lied to her sons.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... marriage.6

She did this until the day she died. You know, kind of like the three witnesses and the plates.

This link is not taking us to a source that says Emma lied to her sons.

Also, making a connection between Emma and the three witnesses may not be applicable. You would have to show that both parties were unreliable witnesses.

Incorrect. That's the point of such a comparison. The fact that Emma lied as a 'witness' is sufficient to question whether similar witnesses lied.

Using IHQ’s tagline isn’t sufficient evidence.

Yes, it is.

I’m going to go with Richard Lloyd Anderson on this...

Really? The LDS historian whose opinion you didn't trust earlier in this thread? That one??

Why do you trust him now? Because the source he discusses supports your narrative?

[Marcus]

Now it’s that he read words off a magic rock, one at a time, whilst the rock was in a hat. Both of those processes look to be untruths because both processes would avoid KJV Bible content and KJV Bible mistakes and KJV Bible content repurposed as if someone else said it in the Book of Mormon. This kinds of errors wouldn’t be produced by a literal translation of ancient gold plates, nor would they be produced by a literal dictation of a supernatural projection of a literal translation of ancient gold plates.

The bolded/blue words are where I have disagreement with you. What you’re doing is projecting.

Regards,
MG

What does "projecting" mean to you, in this context? It's not clear.

[Chap]

When King James translators were translating the KJV Bible between 1604 and 1611, they would occasionally put in their own words into the text to make the English more readable. We know exactly what these words are because they're italicized in the KJV Bible. What are these 17th century italicized words doing in the Book of Mormon? Word for word? What does this say about the Book of Mormon being an ancient record?

ISAIAH 9:1 (KJV)
Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations.

2 NEPHI 19:1
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.

The above example, 2 Nephi 19:1, dated in the Book of Mormon to be around 550 BC, quotes nearly verbatim from the 1611 AD translation of Isaiah 9:1 KJV – including the translators’ italicized words.

https://read.cesletter.org/Book of Mormon/#_1769-kjv-errors

MALACHI 3:10 (KJV)
...and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

3 NEPHI 24:10
...and pour you out a blessing that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

In the above example, the KJV translators added 7 italicized words to their English translation, which are not found in the source Hebrew manuscripts. Why does the Book of Mormon, which is supposed to have been completed by Moroni over 1,400 years prior, contain the exact identical seven italicized words of 17th century translators?

Smith did not understand the significance of the italicized words in the KJV Bible that he was plagiarising. He just copied them, unwittingly providing smoking gun evidence that the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be.

Yup. The appearance of the italicised words inserted into their translation by the KJV editors in words attributed to Book of Mormon characters by Smith, make it extremely unlikely that, in such cases, Smith was doing anything but copy passages from the text of the version of the Bible he had before him.

Of course, once you get used to intoning 'God works in mysterious ways' when faced with evidence flat counter to the claims of the religion in which you have been brought up, you can no doubt deal with this piece of evidence in the same way. That's what being a 'mental gymnast contortionist' is all about.

[MG 2.0]

The bolded/blue words are where I have disagreement with you. What you’re doing is projecting.

Regards,
MG

What does "projecting" mean to you, in this context? It's not clear.

Projecting our own biases and beliefs upon God or those that lived in the past.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

This link is not taking us to a source that says Emma lied to her sons.

Of course it does. What do you think it's saying? Here it is again:

"After her death in 1879, her sons published a transcript of an interview in which she purportedly denied Joseph had ever sanctioned plural marriage."


This also speaks to her lying to her sons and everyone else:

"Despite her knowledge of polygamy, Emma publicly denied that her husband had ever taken additional wives.[51] While Smith was still alive, Emma spoke against polygamy,[52] and she (along with multiple other signatories directly involved in polygamy) signed an 1842 petition denying that Smith or his church endorsed the practice.[53] After his death, she continued to deny his polygamy. When Joseph III and Alexander specifically asked about polygamy in an interview with their mother, she stated, "No such thing as polygamy, or spiritual wifery, was taught, publicly or privately, before my husband's death, that I have now, or ever had any knowledge of ... He had no other wife but me; nor did he to my knowledge ever have".[54][e]

"Many of the Latter Day Saints who joined the RLDS Church in the midwestern United States had broken with Brigham Young and/or James Strang because of opposition to polygamy. Emma's continuing public denial of the practice seemed to lend strength to their cause, and opposition to polygamy became a tenet of the RLDS Church. Over the years, many RLDS Church historians have continued to state that the practice had originated with Brigham Young.[55]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Smit ... e,%5B55%5D

Her death sealed her lying testimony about polygamy and the man whose coffee she poisoned because of it.

Also, making a connection between Emma and the three witnesses may not be applicable. You would have to show that both parties were unreliable witnesses.

No, I wouldn't. You gave, as evidence of Emma's probable integrity regarding the Book of Mormon story, the suggestion that she would never lie to her sons. But of course she lied to her sons. And if Emma would lie her whole life about polygamy, if she was enough of a liar that Brigham Young, a prophet of God, distrusted her, I'm not sure that she's much of a witness.

The things that Emma said and did in regards to Joseph’s taking plural wives is rather mixed as you know. I’m not sure that the same factors that allowed her to be ‘hot and cold’ in regards to Joseph’s polygamy would be directly applicable to the time period we’re discussing and/or the translation project.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

Of course it does. What do you think it's saying? Here it is again:

"After her death in 1879, her sons published a transcript of an interview in which she purportedly denied Joseph had ever sanctioned plural marriage."


This also speaks to her lying to her sons and everyone else:

"Despite her knowledge of polygamy, Emma publicly denied that her husband had ever taken additional wives.[51] While Smith was still alive, Emma spoke against polygamy,[52] and she (along with multiple other signatories directly involved in polygamy) signed an 1842 petition denying that Smith or his church endorsed the practice.[53] After his death, she continued to deny his polygamy. When Joseph III and Alexander specifically asked about polygamy in an interview with their mother, she stated, "No such thing as polygamy, or spiritual wifery, was taught, publicly or privately, before my husband's death, that I have now, or ever had any knowledge of ... He had no other wife but me; nor did he to my knowledge ever have".[54][e]

"Many of the Latter Day Saints who joined the RLDS Church in the midwestern United States had broken with Brigham Young and/or James Strang because of opposition to polygamy. Emma's continuing public denial of the practice seemed to lend strength to their cause, and opposition to polygamy became a tenet of the RLDS Church. Over the years, many RLDS Church historians have continued to state that the practice had originated with Brigham Young.[55]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Smit ... e,%5B55%5D

Her death sealed her lying testimony about polygamy and the man whose coffee she poisoned because of it.




No, I wouldn't. You gave, as evidence of Emma's probable integrity regarding the Book of Mormon story, the suggestion that she would never lie to her sons. But of course she lied to her sons. And if Emma would lie her whole life about polygamy, if she was enough of a liar that Brigham Young, a prophet of God, distrusted her, I'm not sure that she's much of a witness.

The things that Emma said and did in regards to Joseph’s taking plural wives is rather mixed as you know. I’m not sure that the same factors that allowed her to be ‘hot and cold’ in regards to Joseph’s polygamy would be directly applicable to the time period we’re discussing and/or the translation project.

Regards,
MG

Of course you’re not sure. It speaks to Emma’s lack of credibility. She lied to her sons. She lied to the world. She lied with her dying breath. She lied about polygamy to protect Joseph’s reputation—which suggests that she also probably lied about the Book of Mormon to protect Joseph’s reputation. She had a lot gain by lying. We have every reason to distrust her testimony.




Edit: You misrepresent Emma. Emma wasn’t “hot and cold” on Joseph’s polygamy. She always hated it. But you already know that.

[MG 2.0]

The things that Emma said and did in regards to Joseph’s taking plural wives is rather mixed as you know. I’m not sure that the same factors that allowed her to be ‘hot and cold’ in regards to Joseph’s polygamy would be directly applicable to the time period we’re discussing and/or the translation project.

Regards,
MG

Of course you’re not sure. It speaks to Emma’s lack of credibility. She lied to her sons. She lied to the world. She lied with her dying breath. She lied about polygamy to protect Joseph’s reputation—which suggests that she also probably lied about the Book of Mormon to protect Joseph’s reputation. She had a lot gain by lying. We have every reason to distrust her testimony.




Edit: You misrepresent Emma. Emma wasn’t “hot and cold” on Joseph’s polygamy. She always hated it. But you already know that.

My meaning was that there were times when she denied it in public and other times when she recognized it in public. It was a mixed bag. One might expect that in regards to having to deal with her husband taking plural wives.

Maybe I wasn’t clear enough before…although I think I was…Emma may have been telling the truth at one place and time and not the other because of extenuating circumstances in one and not the other.

Hope that makes sense.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

Of course you’re not sure. It speaks to Emma’s lack of credibility. She lied to her sons. She lied to the world. She lied with her dying breath. She lied about polygamy to protect Joseph’s reputation—which suggests that she also probably lied about the Book of Mormon to protect Joseph’s reputation. She had a lot gain by lying. We have every reason to distrust her testimony.




Edit: You misrepresent Emma. Emma wasn’t “hot and cold” on Joseph’s polygamy. She always hated it. But you already know that.

My meaning was that there were times when she denied it in public and other times when she recognized it in public. It was a mixed bag. One might expect that in regards to having to deal with her husband taking plural wives.

Maybe I wasn’t clear enough before…although I think I was…Emma may have been telling the truth at one place and time and not the other because of extenuating circumstances in one and not the other.

Hope that makes sense.

Regards,
MG

Or she may have just been lying. She’s certainly not the pillar of rectitude you’re pretending she was.

When did Emma publicly applaud or even acknowledge polygamy? She was circumspect enough that her own children weren’t aware of it.

[I Have Questions]

One might expect that in regards to having to deal with her husband taking plural wives.

Why might one expect her to lie about her husband taking plural wives?

[MG 2.0]

My meaning was that there were times when she denied it in public and other times when she recognized it in public. It was a mixed bag. One might expect that in regards to having to deal with her husband taking plural wives.

Maybe I wasn’t clear enough before…although I think I was…Emma may have been telling the truth at one place and time and not the other because of extenuating circumstances in one and not the other.

Hope that makes sense.

Regards,
MG

Or she may have just been lying. She’s certainly not the pillar of rectitude you’re pretending she was.

When did Emma publicly applaud or even acknowledge polygamy? She was circumspect enough that her own children weren’t aware of it.

Examples are few. She did ‘sign on’ to these marriages and attended the ceremonies:

1. Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner
2. Patty Bartlett (Sessions)
3. Marinda Nancy Johnson (Hyde)
4. Sarah and Maria Lawrence, and Eliza and Emily Partridge

According to testimony from Lovina Smith Walker, Emma Smith was present for and consented to these marriages, even going so far as to place Emily Partridge's hand in Joseph Smith's hand during their ceremony.*

My point is that Emma was at a ‘different place’ as time moved on from the translation period. She had other things going on in her life that may have resulted in mental/spiritual trauma and struggle that may not have been present in earlier years. I’m hesitant to call her a liar across the board and make a gross generalization as you appear to be doing.

Regards,
MG

*some referencing from Pi A.I.