I attend a Spanish ward where I often translate to English for sacrament meeting by listening to the Spanish speech and speaking English into a microphone simultaneously without written aids. In Spanish, this type of live translation via dictation is referred to as “interpretación” (interpretation). This is because it is essentially impossible for an “intérprete” to provide a faithful word-for-word verbal translation of speech they are hearing in real-time, especially when there are idiomatic expressions or highly-specific cultural references involved. They best they can do is provide an interpretation of the speech that the listener can understand in their own language and cultural context. This means I will often replace idioms and expressions in Spanish with rough equivalents in English or paraphrase certain anecdotes that wouldn’t make sense in the English/American cultural context. Because a literal translation of those words and concepts would fail to convey the intended meaning. I imagine it was much the same way with Joseph Smith.
I have translated In my time as well, and this is a very real case scenario. Sometimes however, if you come across a term that seems to have no equivalent in another language, you simply use that term. Is is very common today with people using terms from other languages because there is no equivalent in the language you speak. Joseph Smith surely had to do this a time or two when a word was used that allowed for no English equivalent or adequate substitution.
From my first reading, the most compelling evidence to me was the undeniable presence of the holy ghost or spirit in me. I had went to church about 10 times in my life. I didn't know what that really feels like. I made it about 1/3 way through on my first read. II knew almost nothing about the LDS church up to that point. Not a skeptic, but also not actively seeking out anything religion up to that time. But when I read that book the first time -- it was like waking up for the first time. My mind and my body was filled with electricity (like when your foot goes to sleep then is waking up, that type of tingling). Over the next week to finish the book -- same experience. No one had to tell me, or convince me. I already know the book is true. What was also interesting to me, after my fourth or fifth read I went back to the Old and New Testament which seemed much more clear than before.
@@fade777777 That is a very common Shapiro ideology. But what we are talking about is Testimony. Do you have a feeling that Jesus is the Christ? Maybe you call it a witness. Some might reference that feeling coming from the Holy Ghost or the Holy Spirit. Jesus taught that “when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me” (John 15:26) To me that is not a feeling. For me it is a fact that I know when the Spirit of Truth comes to me by the Comforter -- which testifies of Jesus Christ, and all other truth from God. and in verse 17, "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." Most of John 15 speaks to this very personal relationship with God. I pray that you may have peace and joy in this life, and the next.
@iwantcheesypuffs facts don't care about feelings.. you've listened to that saying, right? Well.. the spirit of truth reveals truth directly to our spirit.. it bypasses the heart, which is deceptive above all else.. as the scripture says. Please, for the love of all that is holy. Place you faith EXCLUSIVLY in Christ. Joseph is dead.. his life led to death because the wages of sin is death. Christ is alive.. because he did not sin.. and his spirit leads to life. He is the only true Shepard.. smith was just a greedy, selfish story teller that died in a blaze of misery.. JUST like Mohamed and all others that came after Christ. Leave Mormonism. friend.. and experience true and everlasting life in Jesus Christ. (Not the son of the father that lives near Kolob who is fiction)
@@iwantcheesypuffs this exactly! Thank you for saying this. It’s not a feeling, but a witness. Something that cannot be argued against. Don’t let people who are against the church get you down. They are children of God as well, even if they are being contentious in how they treat us. The alternative to the contention is to stop burning straw men, but this is much easier said than done. God bless!
I'm glad I found your channel. I have only seen a few videos so far and I think you may one of the best LDS youtubers. You deal with Pastor Jeff very well and competently.
This Expansion Theory makes sense. I have received inspirations in blessings that are clear but are difficult to convery as clearly. I have often sought for this kind of revelation or clarity of meaning and often struggle to explain the visions and feeling in words that capture the same given. The closest I have been able to come in discussions is to share ideas that are familiar and compare and contrast them so that people can recall or query the meaning and feeling and allow the spirit to assist in transferring that vision to the recipient, but that requires preparation and practice to send verbally. Also see this scripture: 3 NEPHI 17:16-17. There is a type of communication that I think is refferred to as the gift of tongues, glossolalia. This is thought to be the language of the heavens where heavenly concepts are fused with language.
So good. I just wanted to add a thought: The Nephites knew so much more about Christ because they never fully apostatized. They had continual prophetic guidance and leadership up until the actual visitation of Christ in the Americas. Their prophets received more and more- line upon line, continually. Contrast that to the Bible. The last prophet is Malachi around 400 BC. So, for 400 years the Jews are in a state of increasing general apostasy. From Isaiah (which Book of Mormon prophets also had) to some of the last Old Testament prophets you start to get some incredible specifics about Christ. Where he will be born, that he will be crucified between two thieves, sold for 30 pieces of silver…. And so on. But then, it just stops. The Jews then enter a state of centuries-long general apostasy. The story is different in the Book of Mormon and more and more is revealed, as a faithful group under prophet leadership always persists. Anyway, just wanted to share that thought.
What makes you think people would automatically fall into apostasy if further prophesy isn't constantly happening? What if what they needed to know was already given? What if there was no need for further prophesy for the Jewish people before christ came in the flesh?
@@coachmarc2002 There sure was a need. That's why John the Baptist was sent to prepare the way for the Lord and prepare the hearts and minds of the people. Judaism was fractured and divided with many sects teaching various interpretations of scripture. Various Rabbi's would claim to have the best interpretation and would clamor for followers. Judaism was in a state of general apostasy. This really isn't hard to see. The Scribes, the Pharisees, the Saducees, the Essenes, the Harodians, the Galileans, the Nazarenes, the Zealots, etc. etc. Which sect had it right? None had it completely right. This is the effect when there is a loss or prophetic authority and current revelation. General apostasy always results and the Biblical pattern shows many general apostasies and restorations. Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Elijah,...on and on... and then John the Baptist. Christianity has been in a similar state for a long while with so many parallels to ancient Judaism. Many various sects, some agreeing on some "major" points (like some ancient Jewish sects), but all different. Instead of Rabbi's there are "preachers." Remember, the Jews had the scriptures, they had the revealed word of God. Yet, they nearly almost completely missed their own Messiah! Without John the Baptist, Christ may have been immediately rejected, or at least rejected to a far greater degree. In these last days, just prior to the Lord's second advent, God has sent another restoring prophet, Joseph Smith. That's the Biblical pattern and precedent. It also makes a lot of sense. This was done so that faith might increase in the earth and that men might know how to look for the Son of God, just before He comes again to the earth.
Luke 16:16 The prophets were until John. Hebrews 1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Jesus Christ is our living Prophet, Priest and King!
@@chrishumphries7489 LDS prophets and apostles are apostate from the scriptures. They do not worship the true and living God of the Bible but rather an 'exalted man' from another planet. “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see,” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345). That is one reason why the LDS church is very anti Christian. Joseph Smith said . . . (Regarding Joseph Smith’s alleged first vision where celestial personages appeared to him) . . . “My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right - and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were all corrupt . . .” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 1, p. 5-6). “What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world,” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, p. 270). (In questions directed to Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism . . . ). First-“Do you believe the Bible?” If we do, we are the only people under heaven that do, for there are none of the religious sects of the day that do.” Third-“Will everybody be damned, but Mormons?” Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness.” (Teachings, page 119). Brigham Young said. . . “But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong,” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, 1855, p. 171). John Taylor said . . . “We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense . . . Myself and hundreds of the Elders around me have seen its pomp, parade, and glory; and what is it? It is a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol; it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, 1858, p. 167).
@@jlewis8145 Context: In Luke 16:16 Jesus is challenging the Pharisees who are trying to use the authority of the Law of Moses over all things and therefore reject Christ. Jesus responds "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." "The Prophets" were what was known as the the Old Testament. "The Law" was the law of Moses. This is how the Jews spoke and understood these terms. Jesus was teaching that the Law of Moses and "The Prophets" (Old Testament) points to Him and that He is setting up the Kingdom of God. This is not a statement about "all prophets", for why would Christ give the advice He gave in Matthew 7:15-20? Why would Peter and Paul and others continue to receive revelation and prophesy? Why are many prophets mentioned in acts including one named Agabus who prophesies of the captivity of Paul? Why would John prophesy of the end of the world in the Book of Revelation? Why are future prophets specifically mentioned there also? See, God would not cease to send or have prophets after the death and resurrection of Christ. God doesn't change His patterns. The Bible is plain about this and about many prophets after Christ. You keep mentioning "The true and living God." That is who we worship. However true and living indicates current and active revelation from Heaven. We claim "the true and living Church." Why? Because God actively guides and directs it. To many Christians, God's words seems to have ceased with the completion of the Bible (which wasn't compiled until the 4th century AD). God continues to speak, continues to reveal and continues to actively guide in these days, just as in the entirety of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.
I once read a translation of the Tao Te Ching that mentioned modern farm machinery. I also recall the list of musical instruments in Daniel 3, and all those Renaissance paintings showing scenes from the Gospels with European settings and trappings. When I watch foreign movies with subtitles, sometimes I can understand enough of the language to get some insight into how they did the subtitles. Strictly literal translations would generally make for really clunky subtitles. When I learned Spanish as a missionary, I had fun playing around with untranslatable expressions. One of my favorite absurdities was: "Soplemos esta coyuntura!"
Being born and raised speaking Spanish and in a Latin country and in one culture, and then moving to the US learning a new language and experiencing multiple cultures since then, this resonates so much and makes a lot more sense. Thanks for this!
I think the usage of the phrase "white as driven snow" to describe the fruit of the tree of life was very interesting. Very clearly Shakespearean language. It makes me curious about what the idiom that Nephi used originally was to describe the whiteness of the fruit.
One key to understanding this is that neither God nor the Holy Ghost nor his angels communicate with us in our mortal tongue. They communicate with us in a purer spiritual language that transmits thought and feeling, not words. That is not to see they CANT communicate in our tongue, but that the purest form of communication is via spirit to spirit. It is our own language that takes those thoughts and puts them into words in our own way to make sense of it.
I had a vivid revelation a few months ago one night. I saw in this vision a book before me, opened with words on both pages. It resembled the Bible. I read the words...but not literally, more like I "absorbed" the words. The words I read talked about a group of the House of Israel living in and around ancient Canaan at the same time as the Egyptian pharaohs between the time of Joseph and the Exodus. It also said that the people were in mourning because their ability to make their voice heard had become cut off...and that a wicked Pharaoh had taken over Egypt and was now persecuting them. The vision was vivid and very real to me. And, as I said above, I did not literally "read" the words...it was more like the story was relayed to my mind.
I feel like that was a complicated way of saying that God gave the Translation of the Book of Mormon in the language of the people at the time it was given. I feel like the church teaches that fairly clearly. Also as a side note, the Isaiah chapters are only a problem if you adhere to the divisionist argument for the book of Isaiah which originated due to scholars’ unbelief that Isaiah could have made the prophecies that he did. Isaiah lived about 100 years before Lehi so there is no reason that they wouldn’t have had his writings in the Brass plates of Laban if you believe those were really his prophecies and not some anonymous author writing down things after the fact and then attributing the words to Isaiah.
Here’s an excerpt from a criticism of the Expansion Theory for those interested: The “Expanded” Book of Mormon? Stephen E. Robinson The bottom line is this: the proposition that Joseph Smith expanded on a genuinely ancient document which he received from an angel, that the Book of Mormon is part ancient and part modern, presents no fewer obstacles to the unbiased mind and requires no less an exercise of faith, than the proposition that the Book is entirely of ancient authorship. In trying to ride two horses at once the expansion theory falls between them both. It will not ultimately satisfy naturalistic scholars, those who refuse “to go beyond conclusions justified by the evidence or allowed by logic,” because it allows certain of the faith propositions of the Church. Yet it abandons or alters other foundational propositions of the Church and of its members who walk by faith. In summary, then, let me say that the expansion theory asks us, without discussion, proof or justification, to accept as givens three a priori assumptions which are inimical to the teachings of the Church and which are, I believe, merely camouflaged capitulation to the arguments of the Church’s opponents. Second, the theory is inconsistent in its treatment of parallels. It first states very properly that the mere existence of parallels proves nothing in terms of relationship and dependence (Ostler 67), then it turns around and without demonstration invokes just such parallels as evidence for dependence and hence for expansion. Finally, the theory is inconsistent in its use of the critical empirical method, rejecting this or that claim of the Book of Mormon because it involves divine agency, and then proposing alternative views which themselves rely upon divine agency. There is nothing to be gained by trading the traditional understanding of the Book of Mormon for the expansion theory.
Well done, Jacob. Blake has been shedding valuable insights since he originally shared these views in the mid 1980s. Brilliant mind. He's put in incredibly hard and lengthy work!
Jacob the question is - is the Book of Mormon exactly what it claims to be on the title page - yes or no. That is the only question that you should be asking - period.
Since Blake developed his expansion theory, we have come to understand that the Book of Mormon was dictated in Early Modern English, a language already extinct long before the time of Joseph Smith. Indeed, Joseph's holographs never include Early Modern English.
It should also be noted with second Isaiah, many believe Isaiah received a vision of Babylonian captivity and wrote these things in advance, to be kept by his followers and revealed in due time. Which means they could’ve been on the plates of brass. The more common explanation (and more widely believed), however, is that Isaiah wrote something else. He wrote text to a future Israel in captivity with his pre captivity context, which his followers then took and changed to more directly speak to those in captivity. Which under expansion theory, can be an explanation. Jacob was quoting Isaiah pre change, or even changing it himself, but through revelation it was changed to what we know it as now (2nd Isaiah)
God speaks to us in a language we can understand- it makes sense that the BOM is expressed in the vernacular of the 19th century and in a way that we can understand most clearly today because even though it was originally written in ancient times, it was written for our day and for this people. The wisdom of God is so great! I love the Book of Mormon and am so grateful for the clear language that is used in it.
Personally I rejoice over the idea that God reveals himself through human beings according to their heart, mind and cultural backround.. This actually may explain why God may sound so rude at times, or why Paul went of about women having to be silent.. I am pretty certain if God would reveal the Book of Mormon today to Präsident Nelson, it would meet the tone of the time, simply because it comes through a human being of that time... and this is what makes truth seeking so exciting. I love the invitation to seek truth in all books, for who else would and could say something like this unless her or she is certain that truth can be found anywhere and everywhere.... The Book of Mormon makes quiete clear how just and loving God is, and it teaches truth so clear and beautifully...
Thank you. This was truly eye opening and has helped me gravely to understand more about the translation process that Joseph would have used. I love the Book of Mormon and I know it is the word of God. Regards from, Gina Mac of Queensland, Australia. 😊❤️🙏🇦🇺✡️🧔♀️🪔🇮🇱
I was so happy to hear this! This was exactly the answer and thoughts I had to Jeff, but one can only say so much with limited characters. It was awesome to have a scholar back up what I thought in much more eloquent words. Keep this stuff coming!
This was a confirmation to a spiritual impression I received just this past weekend as I pondered comments I had made against some online critics of the Church. I had gotten into something of a debate with someone over the authenticity of Joseph Smith's multiple records of the same revelations that were altered slightly each time. I have been holding off on my response but earlier had asked the critic the question: Have you ever had a dream or vision and ever tried to explain it in regular language? I have, and years on, I still don't have the correct expression of what I experienced. I felt like that was a very simple way to explain the difficulty of penning revelation. It has been the pondering over my question that has distilled new insights around the use of language in translation that this podcast has been able to put into clear words for me. When my friend cited 19th century "New Testament" language in the Book of Mormon, I refused to believe that because for the last 5 years I have been immersing myself in ancient Semitic studies particularly in relation to Judaism, and treaty/covenant making... and I felt like the spirit had been confirming for me the antiquity of the Book of Mormon through my studies. I guess both sides of the coin in translation are satisfied in what Mormon states are the "mistakes of men" and condemn not the things of God. Thanks for your videos!
This is a super video. Thanks because due this video I am going to read more the Book of Mormon . (I would like to see these words translated into Spanish)
Loved this so much. I’m reading again through the BOM and it seems each time these anachronisms bother me a bit more. I hadn’t heard this theory before (mostly because I hadn’t actively sought after it) but I did feel the spirit testify to the veracity of the theory itself
Yes, that"the spirit witnesses to me as I'm reading", is mostly why I believe and have faith in the Book of Mormon. And I love the Book of Mormon so much!!!
My Greatest testimony of the BOM is the power of change it brought into my life and the miracles I witnessed as I prayed and read and the process of my repentance it was so powerful but yes I too always wondered about the ancranyms but the fruits outweighed the doubts so much ch more powerfully but this was very good to hear
I have understood this theory instinctively since I learned to speak Korean as a missionary 34 years ago. There are words and concepts in one language that simply do not exist in the other and vica-versa.
I understood that thanks to Ben Spackman who talks about that in length. Revelation is like Blake Oster puts it, a co-creation between God and man by the time it gets to us.
Most of the gotcha' critics insist on the thesis/premise that the book is a "history" and must be evaluated as if Joseph was translating the text in the same manner that a scholar at Harvard would translate an ancient text . . . obviously not true according to Joseph. (David Whitmer and Emma Hale's descriptions written down 2nd hand decades after the fact, are simply unreliable . . . memory studies support me on this). The Book of Mormon came through revelation, is meant to be "another testament of Christ" and not a history or archeology text. Ostler's theory is spot on and clearly supported by the evidence.
Question for Latter Day Saints: Could you imagine an alternate reality in which the Book of Mormon was a work of 19th century fiction? If so then how would it differ from the Book of Mormon that you believe to be the word of God?
You would have to throw the entire Book of Mormon... out because no one would have come up with anything that is found in the Book of Mormon... let alone the collective content it has. A 19th century work of fiction would have zero similarity. Nor would anyone have dreamed up such a book in the first place. Anyone who has actually read the Book of Mormon knows that Joseph did not write it... nor could any man or group of men write it. It is exactly what it claims to be... a translation "by the gift and power of God" of an abridgement of ancient records... specifically tailored for our modern audience. Honestly.... Read it.
@@dukeofsahib4967 Have you read the Book of Mormon? The entire premise, content, Spirit, ancient and modern elements, etc... would not and could not come together in a fraudulent work. No one could or would come up with or even think about coming up with it. Imagine if the Book of Mormon did not exist. Now come up with the 500+ pages of content--to say nothing of the entire story behind it coming forth. To say nothing of the 2/3 of the record that we have not been given yet because we are still trying to prove that it is fraud. The origin story and the content themselves are the greatest proof outside of the witness of the Spirit that the Book of Mormon is true and of God. For 200 years every atTEMPT imaginable has been made to provide an alternative origin... and none are even close to credible. God knows what He is doing. The Book of Mormon is of Divine origin... designed to help the honest in heart get nearer to God in an age of confusion, ego, pride, and unbelief. It cannot be refuted--God designed it to outsmart and confound the "wise."
@@mrsjonse I have read the Book of Mormon and have many concerns. First of all there is nothing original in any of Joseph Smith’s claims. He came along during a time of restorationist movements and started his own. The idea of Indians being the descendants of Israelites did not start with Joseph Smith either. He conveniently was told by Moroni that he couldn’t retrieve the plates for 4 years. That’s quite a bit of time to hammer out a story. The introduction of the Book of Mormon had to be changed because DNA research did not reflect that the lamanites were the “principal” ancestors of the Indians. The Book of Mormon has also had to go through 7 major editions in which words that aren’t even real had to be taken out. Words had to be added in. It’s everything you’d expect from a fraudulent work. Also not to mention that we have zero archaeological evidence for a civilization that mobilized armies made up of hundreds of thousands of men. Not one coin, sword, synagogue, temple, or manuscript has ever been found. Just what you’d expect from a made up story
I’m an Evangelical Christian in Utah. I once studied with some LDS missionaries for several weeks. Eventually they asked if they could bring a guest with them. That guest ended up being Blake Ostler. During our conversation, Ostler asked my wife what she thought that we would be doing in Heaven for all eternity. “Worshipping God,” she replied. Ostler then shrugged and flippantly said, “Eh, I’ve got better things to do.” Yes, you heard that right. The missionaries looked nearly as shocked as we felt.
That is shocking. An LDS told me that the restored gospel is all about the promise of eternal families and progression. It makes me feel like God isn’t enough for them or they lack imagination and think we will just float around singing songs. Personally, when it comes to eternity with God I know it’s gonna be epic, exciting, and simply amazing . But LDS are so attached to this progression idea and having celestial families. I believe God has great things in store for eternity and I don’t need the “celestial kingdom promises” to look forward to life beyond this life. God is the creator of joy, laughter, and fun. We will have a blast in Heaven and more importantly be with the Almighty God and creator of all. Everything we enjoy on this earth all the good is only a glimpse of heaven. I also think it’s cool how revelation talks refers to the new Jerusalem as a city. Makes me think there will be lots to do. Revelation 21:2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.
I find it very hard to believe that our Heavenly Father created us JUST to worship him forever. That's not love. He wants more for us. We worship him with our love because of how perfectly He loves us. But that's not our one and only purpose. Parts of this life mirror what heavenly life will be like, for example the city in Heaven we read about. We are made in His image. The family structure also mirrors our relationship with Him. We love our parents for giving us life as a microcosm of the way we love Him for creating us and giving us life. It is not that crazy of an idea that the family structure will be mirrored in Heaven as well. That we will have families, that we will have duties other than just worshiping our Father. It baffles me that people believe our Father created humans and gave us life just so we could worship Him for eternity, full stop. Of course we will worship him for eternity - with our love. But that doesn't mean there won't be so much more to life in Heaven. If a man had children and openly admitted he did so "so they will worship me forever" we would all know instinctively that was an insanely selfish reason to have kids. Good fathers have children because they have enough love to give and because they want their children to live a full and happy life with purpose, they want their kids to become all that he is. Our Heavenly Father is not only a good father, he is the BEST father. I wish people would take more time to pray about this and ask Him. "Father, was I created to worship you for eternity in Heaven?" Because I know when I ask Him this, He tells me "You were created for so much more than you can even imagine. I require your obedience and our relationship relies on you loving me as I love you. My will for you is to spend eternity with me. But you were created for so much more than just to be a vessel of worship for me. One day, you will understand."
Excellent explanation. Does this not bring to light the shortsightedness and lack of scholarship of Jeff McCullough? The more I watch him the more I am convinced he is trying to subtly lead us down another path.
Yeah I have to agree, he's studying the BOM academically and he's going to continue to just keep sharing his concerns in a very sweet/respectful way, and ultimately will start leading well-intentioned members away
Maybe. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt in the meantime. If he is willing to be intellectually honest, he'll do much good. If not, he will need to be called out.
@@tommacari4103 The Book of Mormon often defends itself: 2 Nephi 33:11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye-for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness.
I have felt this almost from the get-go. A well- intending person, but I don't feel the spirit when he is going over his BOM "findings". He is taking a purely secular/puritanical view and leaving out the beauty of the scriptures through the spirit. I don't listen to him anymore because honestly, I don't feel edified, but rather am left just feeling more questions and just blah. I can see how it would lead away members who are so caught up in his 'seemingly' innocent/ unifying approach.
The Book of Mormon was given by revelation and can therefore only be fully understood by revelation. But rebellion and acceptance cannot exist together.
Thank you thoughtful faith for this video! U did a great job in the debate on Apologia Studios too BTW! Those dudes are a little more argumentative and disrespectful to LDS than Hello Saints pastor Jeff is. No matter how much you think you have the truth, nobody ought to be disrespectful of others for what they honestly believe. Keep up the good work! I try to share scriptures in the comments wherever I can to help the cause! Peace!
Is that video on here? I agree. I find Apologia really rub me the wrong way and they throw words around like "respectful dialogue" which is clearly not how they approach dialogue with members of the Church.
@@saspen3 the debate was with you and another LDS against a black and Hispanic Apologia guy. It was on their channel that I watched it. You're right, they preach "respectful dialogue", then they do not always use it with Latter Day Saints! I just find Apologia sometimes says things disrespectfully, like Mormon gets pulled away from the TRUTH, FEISTY Mormon girl defends Mormonism or missionary who cannot answer (the exact questions) they are asking him at the time and a picture of his eyes looking upwards (like he is ditzy). They also record people without telling them and pick and choose who they put on UA-cam. Technically they have the right on public property, but if the Hello Saints guy can be more respectful, they should too! I guess they could be worse though!
What is crazy to think is that there are people out there that will say because Latterday Saints go into such great depth and details in their explanations of religious texts that they are just inventing ways around being utterly wrong (explaining away). And if Latterday Saints present little explanation to inconsistencies those same critics will use those inconsistencies as reasons why they are wrong. In other words, if one has already decided someone is wrong, there is little any mortal can do to convince them otherwise. It is my belief that It is those people that can only be convinced by God's Spirit, which cannot dwell in unholy temples. It is a lose lose until humility is achieved.
I agree with you about humility. I also agree with you about the need for a desire to believe before any faith will be gained. If their desire is to destroy, little ground can be gained. I find that the real strength of the Book of Mormon comes from its content--the gospel of Jesus Christ--and from the Three Witnesses. I have always gained new respect when discussing the truth from these angles. God bless you, Jacob.
"No one comes to the Father unless the Father draws him." John 6:44 The true and living God offers forgiveness of sins, salvation and eternal life for free. That is how much God loves everyone! Only a proud and arrogant man would ever think that they could become a god one day. Only a proud and arrogant man would think that they could ever measure up to God's standard of perfection. Matthew 5:48 "Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of God."
@@estherlewis7458 So when Jesus commanded the multidude in Matthew to be perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect, he was teaching them to be prideful? You have to realize this one fact and it will remove any stereotype you have about LDS. We equate becoming gods as you equate becoming godly. They are absolutely the same thing. It is a scriptural concept to be gods. John 10:34 and Psalms 82. Now the context of that doesn't suggest to put yourself over Him who created you but to learn from Him forever. This is what Jesus did and he commanded all to follow him in that same pattern. The greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven or the most perfect and godly in heaven is the one who humbles himself below all. That is what LDS teach and that is what Christ teaches.
@@jacobsamuelson3181 First of all, I don't worship your Heavenly Father because he is only an exalted man from another planet. He is not the Creator. Psalm 82 was written to the unjust Jewish judges of the day, who were seen as 'gods' by the people. They would die one day and be judged by God himself. They were only men after all. Are you saying that Latter-day Saints are unjust Jewish judges? I think you would agree that Latter-day Saints are not 'gods.' Jesus Christ claimed to be God. John 10:30-33. It was punishable by death so the Jews took up stones to stone him. Jesus Christ then states that if mere men can be considered 'gods,' then he can rightly claim to be the Son of God, since he was sent by God. The words 'Son of God' mean that Jesus is God. The Jews knew this. It was the reason Christ was crucified.
@@jacobsamuelson3181 Becoming godly and becoming a god are two different things. Jesus Christ commands us to be perfect. Becoming like God doesn't mean you turn into a god. You will always be a created being. In fact, God has already sentenced you to death for all your sins. 10/10 people will die. You will be one of them. Your death will show to the world that God is serious about sin. Romans 6:23 The wages of sin is death. You have earned the death penalty. Even created beings who have never sinned, angels in Isaiah 6, cover their faces and feet in the presence of an infinitely holy and righteous God. I have been made perfect. Christ took all of my sins upon himself when he shed his blood on the cross, died and rose again. By repentance and faith alone, Christ has given to me his righteousness, which is the righteousness of God. 2 Corinthians 5:21 God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering Christ hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.
Phenomenal video! I thank you so much for this valuable contribution that gets rid of concerns regarding seeming anachronisms, perfectly explained here!
I thought that one of the main ideas in our faith is that the fully Christian practices in Old Testament times were either not recorded or removed out of the text, but that they were very real. The biblical patriarchs and even the Israelites under Moses practiced baptism and prophecied regularly about Christ. Atheists and others have similar complaints about the relationship between Judaism and Christianity, because it's important to them that they be two different things and their worldview depends on it. But a lot of that was disproven with the Dead Sea scrolls. Archeology and scholarship about ancient cultures are unreliable at best.
There is not just one Bible. There are several. I have compared them from time to time , chapter and verse. The modern versions of the Bible use modern every day language instead of the older language used in the King James version. Modern version of Luke 13:24: “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.” Can I conclude from this that the Bible is not an ancient book? Something similar to this has taken place when Joseph Smith Translated/interpreted the Book of Mormon.
I like what Ostler said about revelation coming in the language of the one receiving it. I don't see these anachronisms. The doctrine of Christ has been the same since the time of Adam. For example, we are told in the Pearl of Great Price that Adam was baptized. Baptism has been required and practiced since Adam. This is one of the doctrines purposely 'lost' in the Old Testament, 1 Ne 13:23-26. The brass plates contained, at least, a more complete and accurate record of the revelations and the doctrine of Christ as given to men before the time of Christ's personal ministry. Did other B.C. prophets know the Savior's name? Very likely and also very likely to have been 'lost'. If Joseph of Egypt was told of Moses' name hundreds of years before his birth, and Isaiah was told of Cyrus' name, why couldn't B.C. prophets have been told what the Savior's name would be? After all, Joshua (His Hebrew name), means 'God is deliverance'. Is that because LONG before the Saviors birth the prophets were told His name and mission and that is why the name means what it does?
Here are a list of some anachronisms of the book of Mormon from the view that is a historical text. Steel swords, horses, chariots, not found in the Americas from that time period. You can argue that Joseph used horses because he knew those but there many other unknown animals listed that have no reference. Deutero-Isaiah. Many of the Isaiah chapters in the book of Mormon,which it claims to come from the brass plates, were written well after Lehi would have left Jerusalem and couldn't have been on the brass plates. All of the NT language that is found in the first books of the BofM was not the way the Hebrews would have spoken so it is out of place. Not to mention the lack of DNA and anthropological evidence for the majority of the items, concepts and people of the Americas. Absolutely no evidence for the amount of people the BofM claims or the wars it describes. Most top apologetic scholars are starting to concede that it is a 19th century text even the church is backing off the history claims. To look objectively one must put out any preconceived beliefs and look with fresh eyes. If one wants to know truth then all possibilities must be an option not just the ones we want to be true. You can't work from the view that it is absolute truth and make everything fit to that belief because that requires faith despite the evidence against it. B. H. Roberts in the early 1900s recognized the issues with the historical inaccuracies but was ignored.
I like Jeff and following his experiences but I kinda get the vibe he’s saying, “I read the Book of Mormon so you don’t have to…” which is kinda the opposite of what we preach. What do you think?
Agreed!! I don't like his voice, he sounds like he's an authority on spiritual matters. The Holy Ghost is the only one who has the authority and convincing Power to establish the truth.
Many evangelicals won't pick up the Book of Mormon. And, their own pastors make their congregations come to 'how to tract to Mormon' workshops for their knowledge of what we believe.
I can’t tell if this is ironic or not. Blake Ostler is the last place I go to read when feeling lazy. His writing is the most insanely difficult analytical philosophical theology I think the Church has ever and will ever produce. Every paragraph gives me a new brain aneurysm, and I feel like I have to take a nap every time I put his books down.
When you seek answers from the Book of Mormon instead of the Bible, God can't help you because you have turned your back on Him. Therefore this leaves the door open for Satan (II Corinthians 11:14-15) to step into your life with a false christ or prophet showing you "signs and wonders" to lead you away from the real Jesus of the Bible who is God the Son 2nd person of the Trinity. God Himself warns us about this in MATTHEW 24:23-24 "Then if anyone says to you, Look, here is the Christ! or There! do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect..." Mormons teach and believe that their jesus is the brother of Satan, which contradicts what God says in His Bible that Jesus is God the Son 2nd person of the Trinity. So Mormons, which Jesus do you believe in? A. Your jesus of the Book of Mormon, who is the brother of Satan. OR B. The Jesus of the Bible, who is God the Son 2nd person of the Trinity.
I particularly liked the legal references. Jeff trends to insist that through Christ the need for covenants was done away. Clearly not only must Christians engage in covenants in order to enjoy what Christ offers us (here's where the Trinity falls apart because the agreement is with Heavenly Father, not Christ), but the blessings of Abraham are only available to partake through covenant.
Faithful Latter-day Saints point to the BofM's ancient text constructions (chiasmus, Hebrew poetic parallelism, covenant renewal ceremonies, etc.), while detractors point to anachronisms. It's wonderful to see someone address and reconcile both.
The moral of the story is: When we start with the conclusion, then tie in elevated emotions, we can always find the evidence we need to make virtually anything true in our own mind.
@@brucenorth5337Agreed. The truth is that Jesus Christ never said you needed to believe the Book of Mormon was true to get to the 'top level' of heaven. Tens of millions of Americans have never heard of the Book of Mormon not to mention the billions of people around the world. Of course, the later teachings of Joseph Smith contradicted the Book of Mormon as does the Doctrine and Covenants and the Bible. Such a sad story. 😞 God bless you.
@@estherlewis7458 I am curious as to why members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints appear to be in so much need of correction, when there are billions of people out there that don’t even believe in God at all? I can appreciate and even welcome Pastor Jeff’s approach of respectful bilateral dialog; but the condemnation, negativity, lack of love and obvious ignorance of those that you are trying to convince of their errors, is frankly not Christ-like at all.
@@JeffreySmith-if6ey If there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing, there would still be nothing. God is the first, uncaused cause of everything you see. No one created God or Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. God does not have a mom and dad. As a Christian, I worship the true and living God the Father, who is invisible and a spirit. He is eternal. He has always been God. He never had to work his way to godhood. He is transcendent. He lives outside of the universe because he spoke the universe into existence including the planet that the LDS Heavenly Father came from and the star Kolob that he lives near. Unlike pagan gods, the true and living God is not married. He created Adam out of the dust of the ground- no wife needed! The true and living God is self-existent. He does not need food, air, water, sex, sleep, shelter, clothing or anything else a mere created being might need. Latter-day Saints do not believe in, know or worship this God. Instead, they worship an 'exalted man' from another planet, that had to work his way to godhood, practices polygamy, lives near a star named Kolob, had sex with his own spirit daughter Mary to conceive 'Christ,' damns people who deny the eternal principle of polygamy (D&C 132), threatened to destroy Emma if she didn't abide by Joseph's adultery (D&C 132:54, 65), is going to have women sharing their husbands with other women for all eternity and the 'other women' will be separated from their families so they can serve as part of some LDS man's harem should he get to the 'top level' of heaven. By worshiping a false God, Latter-day Saints are idolaters. They are breaking the first and second commandments and have no hope of getting into heaven. God said that idolaters will be cast into the lake which burneth with fire. Revelation 21:8 Is that loving for God to send idolaters to outer darkness? Would you say that is ignorant and hateful? The true and living God offers forgiveness of sins, salvation and eternal life for free, if you are interested. That is how much God loves you! ❤️ I John 1:9 If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Romans 6:23 the wages of sin is death but the gift 🎁 of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.
A lot of this is based on man's interpretation / understanding.. The truth is revealed by the Holy Spirit. People are decived by the devil through man. Your faith is based on a MAN be not decieved.. theses no way around it.. christ or Joseph Smith. Joseph was a lier and deciever. Why compromise your eternal salvation?
3:00 It is silly we call this an anachronism. Because we don’t know how much the Jews in Jerusalem lost of the gospel before it was taken from among them after Lehi left. Baptism comes from the idea of Mikveh, which is Jewish in nature and has been for some time a practice in Judaism. Likely the Jews changed it along with the rest of their apostate ideas. So Nephi was MORE connected to the truth than his Jewish counterparts of his day.
Could be. I think he's mostly just saying that according to the most accepted scholarly understanding of the Bible of Israelites this would be anachronistic.
The true Gospel is simple, so simple that even a child can understand it. It's not meant to be complicated and you are not meant to have to do complex 'mental gymnastics' to arrive at THE truth. All of this 'explaining away' the 'anachronisms' in the BoM, gives me a headache and makes my head spin. The Bible tells us everything that we need to know in order to be saved and spend eternity with God. It's not about making covenants...we are already in the New Covenant...it's not about attending temples and performing ordinances...WE (our bodies) ARE the Temple of the Holy Spirit who lives in us. Revelation 21:22 tells us there is NO temple in heaven because 'the Lord Almighty and the Lamb are its temple'. I am a Mormon convert (from 2010) and have spent the last 13 years diving deep into the BoM and LDS doctrine and there are many reasons why I have rejected the Church but there really is only one that any Christian needs in order to reach the same conclusion...that it is a false church...and that is found in Isa. 43:10..'Ye are My witnesses saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He: before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me". See also Isa 45:5. LDS doctrine teaches that God was once a man like us and progressed to 'Godhood'. It teaches that we have 'heavenly parents' and that God Himself had 'parents' and so on and so forth, meaning that the God of this earth is NOT the one and only original, non-created, eternal, first-cause of EVERYTHING. It goes on to teach that we humans can progress to 'godhood' too. The two texts above (and there are more like them) completely contradict this teaching. Please let the Bible be your Yardstick for measuring truth, after all, if the BoM is 'another testament' and a second witness, then the Bible is the FIRST. If the BoM or LDS teachings, or Joseph Smith's words and character, don't line up with what the Bible says, then walk away from that church, regardless of how it makes you 'feel'.
Read Stephen Robinson's critique of Ostler's expansion theory and the problems with it. It's hardly what I would offer to Jeff to help him understand the Book of Mormon.
Probably because of the interviews with the Lord and angels that both Lehi and Nephi had... Nephi tells us they are living a higher law and understanding than that which their contemporaries in Jerusalem were. They kept the Law of Moses... but the Law was dead to them. Their relationship with Christ was much more developed--much more "New Testament-ish." Reformed Egyptian--translated by the gift and power of God--for a 19th century and beyond audience = God giving Joseph a "translation" that uses language that makes sense now and is familiar now... including some passages and language that are/is exactly the same or very similar to passages/language in the Bible. That seems to be simple Divine Wisdom. Why make it more complicated when you can make the reader instantly comfortable with "familiar" language?
Baptism was prevalent in the Old Testament times. It was practiced in the temple and the baptismal font is described in 1 Kings 7. John the baptist was the last prophet of the old law and baptized believers before baptizing the messiah Jesus Christ. Therefore, if John the baptizer was of the Old Testament and baptized with water for the remission of sins, surely the other prophets did likewise. So it makes sense that baptism was prevalent in the Book of Mormon. Jesus disciples continued to baptize in the presence of Jesus Christ (although Jesus did not baptize) but the law continues, no jot or tittle of the law shall change until heaven and earth pass, heaven and earth have not yet passed away. Therefore we continue to practice this saving ordinance that has been since the beginning.
I had always assumed these Christian elements always existed and that such references had been removed from the Old Testament long ago, or that these Christian elements were revealed to Lehi's family because of their circumstances, or some combination of the two. Clearly Joseph does have some influence in the language used which can also explain it. For example he uses the French word adieu at one point. Interestingly, there are some examples of old English words being used in the Book of Mormon which date to centuries before Joseph's time which tells me he wasn't completely limited by his own vocabulary.
@@deerjerkydave Joseph Smith was supposedly translating 'reformed Egyptian.' It is not an accurate translation, if he is just throwing in modern language. No scholar would ever consider a translation of anything valid, if the person translating was sticking his head in a hat and looking at a seer stone. Where did Christ require anyone to believe the Book of Mormon was true to get to the 'top level' of heaven?
How does Blake feel about the use of the seer stone to translate the BoM? Apparently some records tell that actual words in light appeared on the stone and were replaced by new words when the former were dictated by Joseph, and both transcribed and repeated by Oliver. edit: typo
That's a good question. So the implication you're suggesting is that if words appeared on the stone then those words would be directly from God and there would be no bias or influence from Joseph Smith over the words? This could be the case but I'll point out that perhaps even these words appearing were influenced by Joseph Smith's bias and influence, understanding, etc. I know that's sort of weird but perhaps our subjective perception imposes itself on any perception of God that we perceive of Him when receiving revelation.
I actually disagree with Ostler somewhat because of this detail. There are a few alternative explanations for the New Testament language and heavy-handed Christian culture early in the Book of Mormon I can come up with: 1) Mormon may have editorialized the small plates and throughout his abridgement, re-contextualizing the writings of Nephi and others to better fit with his late Nephite religious understanding, which was much closer to the Christian mold we are familiar with due to Christ's ministry. 2) The lost 116 pages (which was probably more than a third of the entire text, more like ~300 pages) of the Book of Mormon, had a writing style and character, according to those that knew them, of being "very Hebrew". It was thought, at the beginning, that the most prominent role of the Book was towards the scattered house of Israel and the Jews. It wasn't seen as being very Christian at all. If we take that impression as being accurate, then it would indicate that the first part of the Book of Mormon did not have very much anachronistic character during that portion of Nephite history. This would imply a more gradual introduction of plainly Christian concepts than what we experience with the current work. 3) It should be pointed out, that when we get input from Lehi, in First and Second Nephi, the language and emphases are different. Lehi's voice comes over as far more Old-Testament, from his Theophany in the wilderness, to his dream of the Tree of life and his patriarchal blessings of his sons on his deathbed. Lehi fills the mold of an old testament patriarch. Nephi, on the other hand, seems to be far more revolutionary. Laman and Lemuel whine about following their father, but take it upon themselves to physically abuse Nephi, often after Nephi goes on one of his sermons. Nephi's perspective seems to be radically different from his family's, he talks about Christ and the Godhead, the atonement and is obsessed with convincing the rest of his family about these things. They may have thought Lehi was "visionary" but they probably saw Nephi as insane and dangerous. Moreover, Nephi seems to realize this during his commentary on Isaiah, when he says he "delights in plainness". He supposes that because the identity of the Saviour, the end of the Mosaic law and the structure of the Godhead was clear to him, as well as detecting all of this in Isaiah, that it ought to be clear to everybody. Hence he speaks in "plainness" instead of the esotericism that was typical of the Old-Testament prophets. This trend was then continued through Jacob and the other Book of Mormon prophets and teachers.
That is a good observation. What it really points to is the fact that Joseph didn't translate using the seer stone in a hat, like modern church history revisionists have said. The sources for the seer stone in a hat theory are questionable at best. They are not from Joseph or Oliver, the only ones who really knew how it was done. They both, many times told that it was done by the gift and power of God using the Urim and Thummim. Joseph never explained completely how he did it, but the experience of Oliver's failed attempt to translate is very enlightening. The Lord told him the reason he couldn't translate was because he failed to study it out in his mind and then ask if it was correct. The book, Seer Stone V. Urim and Thummim: Book of Mormon Translation on Trial is a very good source on this subject. This false history of the translation as well as the false history of Joseph's money digging and using magic and many other claims that tarnish his and his family's character are the source of many doubts and faith crises within the membership of the Church and keeps many investigators from receiving testimonies. It is frustrating and sad that these false theories that have their origins from early apostates and anti-Mormon persecutors have been accepted and promoted by LDS Scholars and historians.
“The claims of the Church are now and always have been historical. The doctrines have power only because they testify of what really happened. As Jacob put it: “For the Spirit speaketh the truth and lieth not. Wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be” (Jacob 4:13). Also, in the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord says, “And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come; And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning” (93:24-25). When the link between doctrine and the real world is severed, religion becomes a sugar-coated lie. Adopting the concept of “salvation history” might indeed make it easier for those who cannot sustain a belief in certain historical claims to remain in the fold, but it does so by telling them that what they found so hard to believe was not really true after all. Thus, before we even begin to analyze the arguments for the expansion theory, we see that at least three a priori assumptions are at work: 1. There is no predictive prophecy (for if there is, the expansion theory is unnecessary). 2. The Book of Mormon is not a reliable witness to Nephite history and culture unless supported by other pre-exilic sources. 3. At least some of the historical claims of the Book of Mormon are false. let me say that the expansion theory asks us, without discussion, proof or justification, to accept as givens three a priori assumptions which are inimical to the teachings of the Church and which are, I believe, merely camouflaged capitulation to the arguments of the Church’s opponents. Second, the theory is inconsistent in its treatment of parallels. It first states very properly that the mere existence of parallels proves nothing in terms of relationship and dependence (Ostler 67), then it turns around and without demonstration invokes just such parallels as evidence for dependence and hence for expansion. Finally, the theory is inconsistent in its use of the critical empirical method, rejecting this or that claim of the Book of Mormon because it involves divine agency, and then proposing alternative views which themselves rely upon divine agency. There is nothing to be gained by trading the traditional understanding of the Book of Mormon for the expansion theory.”
The hypocrisy of saying that skeptics of the Book of Mormon only look for things that agree with their “worldview,” while you scrape the bottom of barrels for the few people that try to justify ridiculous truth claims of the church is astounding!
How is it that this Bible-believing pastor can have the Book of Mormon for over a year and not see the divinity in it, cannot feel the Holy Ghost witness of it's truthfulness, and cannot see the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ in it? Could it be that Pastor Jeff's original purpose in "learning all he can about the Mormons" was to build up a very large church of Mormon apostates that he helped create? I was stunned when I watched him explain why he rejects Eternal Marriage. How could he not want to be with his beautiful wife forever? Makes me think of a comment by Joseph Smith: "There will be very many disappointed people in the resurrection."
After watching this I am a bit unclear on what you mean. for a concrete example that might help clarify, Is it your opinion that Nephites performed Christian baptisms or was that a modern addition?
I think the answer would be yes under this way of thinking. They wouldn’t have called it “Christian baptism”. Moreover they would have certainly had all sorts of different concepts manifest in language and perhaps ritual surrounding the event. If we were transported in time and given a Google translator, we would likely not get the same translation as what is in the Book of Mormon. But under this theory, Devine revelation does many things including going to the heart of the truth behind the concepts and giving the information to the subject in a way they can understand and even communicate to others in their respective time and place.
Michael Perry: I am not sure where you are coming from and what your knowledge base is. From God's point of view, the gospel of Jesus Christ has always been the same process for salvation beginning with Adam. There are five steps: 1. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ who was a member of the Godhead in his pre-earth life, was the God who called the prophets of the Old Testament and revealed his will to them, was still a member of the Godhead during his earthly mission when he was "the only begotten of the Father in the flesh." After his ascension, he remains a member of the Godhead who "sits at the right hand of the Father. It is He who decided in 1820 that it was time to fulfill the prophecy of Acts 3: 19-21. The first thing he did was call a prophet. Why? The answer is found in Amos 3:7. During the course of the restitution of all things, Christ brought forth the Book of Mormon (which, along with the Bible contains the fulness of the gospel, (and fulfills the prophecy found in Ezekiel 37:17) which he had caused to be compiled circa 400 AD. He then sent John the Baptist in 1829 to restore the Aaronic Priesthood which has the authority to baptize. Shortly thereafter he sent Peter, James and John to restore the Melchizedek Priesthood which has the authority to confer the Gift of the Holy Ghost without which there can be no justification and sanctification. We know from the revelations that Adam was baptized by an angel. The fulness of the Gospel was known and practiced by all the prophets of the Old Testament. It was only after the children of Israel built a golden calf that the Lord gave Moses a "lesser law" designed as a "schoolmaster to bring us to Christ" as Paul put it. One of the first things Jesus did during his mortal ministry was to fulfill the Law of Moses and restore the fulness of the gospel. 2.Repentance-changing your mind, your heart, and your behavior from sin to righteousness. Doing what Jesus taught you must do to enter the kingdom of heaven; namely, keep the commandments and do the will of the Father. 3. Be baptized by someone having the authority to perform a baptism. Baptism is a covenant between you and God that you will take upon yourself the name of Christ, keep his commandments, and always remember him. In return Christ promises that "his spirit will always be with you." Several other things happen with baptism. You become a member of the Christ's church, which is the kingdom of God on the earth. If not already a member of the House of Israel by lineage, you are adopted into the House of Israel. If faithful you become an adopted son or daughter of Christ who is the Father of Eternal Life. It is also at this point that the newly baptized person takes Christ's yoke upon him/her and becomes a partner with Christ in working out one's salvation. 4. You are given the Gift of the Holy Ghost by someone holding the Melchizedek Priesthood and thereby have access to the Holy Ghost, the comforter, who then gives you access to justification and sanctification which transforms the individual from a natural, worldly person to a holy, Godly person who can be in the presence of God. As Paul put it, "For we know that when He shall appear, we shall be like Him for we shall see him as he is." 5. Endure to the end. It isn't a one and done process. It is a lifetime process with our ultimate objective of developing a Christ-like character. Jesus put it in a rhetorical question, "What manner of men ought ye to be; behold even as I am. Nephi described the process, "The strait gate we must pass through to enter the narrow path is repentance and baptism of water and of the spirit." We must then press forward on the narrow path led by the Holy Spirit and assisted by Christ's grace (the gift of Christ's enabling power) until we are sanctified.
@@bobrussell8339 I understand that LDS view, this video though expressed a view that maybe this Christian-like baptism in the BOM wasn’t literally what was going on. It was sort of superimposed onto the text in retrospect. After watching it I was unclear if that is what this video was suggesting. I know the common LDS view is one of the fullness of the Christian gospel being taught to Adam, followed by apostasy, restoration, apostasy restoration over and over again. That view doesn’t seem to match what the Bible shows, the Bible shows a progressive understanding of God. Adam knew a little, Abraham learned more, Moses more and then finally the fullness of God’s character and love and grace are revealed perfectly in Jesus. Yes apostasy happens a lot all through the Bible but you have each righteous age learning more and more about God until Jesus when the fullness is revealed. The “restoration” of all things in acts Chapter 3 doesn’t seem at all to be talking about an apostasy that will happen in the community of Jesus believers followed by a church restoration by Joseph Smith being called. If it was, Peter would be telling them they can follow Jesus for a short season before they will all fall away but then eventually a church will be restored of true believers. That isn’t what he says. He is taking about the restoration of “all things” not of some church doctrine and authorities. if you read the Old Testament many of the prophecies talk about the world being restored to the glory it had before sin entered. That is what the prophets talk about so just reading the words in these passages leads me to conclude that is what acts 3 had in mind. The world at Christ’s second coming will be transformed, death will be conquered, sin will be overcome and all will live with love with God. These verses in acts 3 give no indication they are about another Christian denomination springing up to correct some things that were being missed by the other denominations.
@@mkprr The doctrine in the early church was clearly eroding during Paul's ministry as evidenced by Paul's letters. There was also a protocol for the replacement of apostles and prophets which the New Testament tells us were the "foundation of the Church, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone." These apostles held the keys of the kingdom. When the last died, the church itself died. Thereafter what you had were Bishops and Priests who had been ordained, but could nolonger use their priesthood authority because the keys were gone. The message of the "restitution of all things spoken of by all the holy prophets since the world began" had its beginning in 1820 when God the Father and Jesus Christ called a prophet. Amos 3:7 Christ then restored the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods by sending John the Baptist and then Peter, James, and John. Christ also sent an "another angel having the everlasting gospel to preach to them that dwell on the earth." Rev 14: 7 He later sent Moses in 1836 to restore the keys of the "gathering of the 12 tribes of Israel" as prophesied in the Bible. He also sent Elijah to restore the sealing keys as prophesied in Mal 4:5. "so the whole earth wouldn't be wasted at his second coming." In the process of Christ restoring the fulness of the gospel, his church, and his priesthood and keys of the priesthood (delegated authority to perform the saving ordinances and administer the affairs of the church, He provided another witness to these events so that "in the mouths of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." 2 Cor 13:1 The Bible also tells us that you can know a true prophet "by his fruits." What are the fruits of a prophet? He receives revelation from God, teaches it to the people, and records it for scripture for future generations. Joseph Smith received 883 pages of new revelation that are available for anyone who desires to know what God has revealed in the latter days in preparation for his return. Just as the missionaries of the New Testament testified of Christ's ministry. I also testify that Jesus Christ, the Son of God the Father, has been back at least nine documented times to bring about the "restitution of all things." It is now in your hands to study it, ask God if it is true, and embrace it when he tells you it is. I hope for, but don't expect any more success than Christ, his apostles, and the other early missionaries had. I think one of the saddest events recorded in the New Testament was after Jesus preached to the 5000 men plus women and children that most went away and didn't return. Jesus said to his apostles, "Will you also go away?"
This is the problem with Apologetics. They come up with a theory that doesn't match witness accounts, ignoring the most rational conclusion that the book is fictional and the eye witness accounts are fabricated
Yeah, right. Except you have to put the witness accounts into their proper context. None of them ever saw what Joseph saw in his hat, and no, it isn't a rational conclusion that the Book is fictional and the eye witness accounts are fabricated. The evidence that Blake presented is obtained via well used and understood form-critical analysis that is used on all sorts of ancient documents by scholars, which definitely removes it out of the realm of something that Joseph could have come up with on his own, considering that most of these form-critical methods didn't discover the things they did until the late 20th century.
@ultroniumgalactus7343 I wish I could believe that, but unfortunately, Blake's analysis is not correct and presents many problems that make this claim false. Joseph is a lot more intelligent than people give him credit for, and the false narrative presented of him being an unintelligent farm boy is created to make it appear miraculous. Hey, I get it, I used to believe it all as well, and any problems with the narrative I just put on the shelf. Well, my shelf never broke, but instead, I spent 10 years solving all the problems on my shelf, and as I have been solving all the problems, it paints a whole new picture that I would have never believed and it is a picture that most members would reject because it's not what they were raised to believe. The truth is more scandalous and exciting than you can possibly imagine. Emma Smith gives an account that Joseph can't even put two sentences together, but yet in 1829, he personally writes a letter to Oliver Cowdery from his own hand that tells us otherwise. So what would you believe, would you believe the account of Emma, or would you believe the evidence of the handwritten letter? Here is what you are going to discover as you sincerely do your research, that everyone is lying for what they believe is for the greater good. This is called Poius Fraud. You will be taught that Joseph had a third grade education, but you will not be taught about Joseph going to high school with Josiah Stowell Jr, or that McMillan was his high school science teacher, or that he was on a debate club according to others that claimed to go to school with Joseph. Lucy Mack Smith will say that Joseph was deprived a formal education because they didn't have the money, but no one is going to tell you that in 1814 a new act was put in place called "The Act for the Better Establishment of Common Schools" allowing poor children to receive free education and paid the teachers. Scholarship work done by William Davis showed that Joseph Smith may have actually attend 10.5 years of formal schooling along with private tutoring and he provides all the sources for his claims. After studying this and reading through his sources I am absolutely convinced that Joseph is a prodigy child that has an understanding that goes beyond our comprehensive understanding. Joseph recognizes his gift as the gift and power of God and truly believes that he is called to bring forth a great work that will make a lot of money for him and his family. He starts out his journal "Having been born of goodly parents" wich is a phrase we should all recognize. Joseph sees himself as Nephi and helps us understand that when Nephi killed Laban and deceived Zoram it was for a righteous purpose and for the better good. Meaning that it is OK to be deceptive if it is for the better good. People flocked to Mormonism because of the miraculous story of the Angel Moroni and the Gold Plates, then they joined Mormonism after reading the BOM and feeling a conviction in their heart that it was true. The same model used today. Joseph sees translation as bringing a lack of understanding to a full understanding of the way he understands things. So what you don't understand he is going to explain it to you the way he understands it and he may use stories in order to help you understand. In order for Joseph to stand out above all the others fighting for membership to their church, Joseph has to create a miraculous experience that people can believe and he has that charismatic authority to do just that. Is Joseph a prophet? Yes, because we are all prophets, seers, and revelators. Is the Book of Mormon true? Yes, it serves its purpose to bring people to Christ. Is the Book historical? No, however it contains some history within its pages, but for the most part contains fictional characters in a fictional book that is inspired by historical understanding at the time. Elder Bednar "The Book of Mormon is not a book of history." Trying to find evidence for the BOM is "fruitless" as the church has stated in 1970 and continues in its position today. Hence is the reason they stopped all archaeological digs and stopped spending millions of dollars to locate where the events took place.
@@stevenhenderson9005 I never claimed that all the Book of Mormon is historical. My claim is that the Book of Mormon is influenced by ancient and modern ideas and expression. For Joseph not being able to dictate a letter as Emma claims, I never made that claim, and I don't think Emma was right as you rightly point out. The idea that Joseph used the Book of Mormon as a means to get influence and stand out over his contemporaries is questionable at best, and patently false at worst. I have spent quite a long time reading contemporary sources in the day of Joseph Smith and I don't think your analysis is accurate. In fact, your comment seems to follow Dan Vogel's perspective almost to a T. I never even denied that Joseph was intelligent! I am simply suggesting that attributing all the Book of Mormon's text and ideas to JS is problematic. Please explain why Ostler's evidence isn't persuasive. If you want to have a conversation with me, maybe we could change each other's minds.
In John 8:56, Jesus says Abraham saw his day and rejoiced. So, what did he see? The same thing Nephi saw. The Old Testament is a record of Israel’s apostasy. Nephi and Lehi were not apostates. So, it is perfectly reasonable that Nephi and his dependents had a correct view of Jesus and his mission. It is not reasonable to hold Jeff’s view: that God never revealed the truth to his children until Jesus was 30 years old. That would be a partial God, for sure.
Lehi and Nephi both had interviews with the Lord and angels... and they had the Brass Plates. When the angel told Nephi that many pain and precious things would be taken from the Bible records... chances are he was shown those records... and having the Brass Plates he could plainly see what had been lost or removed--at least up to 600 BC. The Bible's 5 Books of Moses gives us a "Coles Notes" version of things. For the Nephites to not "not dwindle in unbelief" as their contemporaries in Jerusalem had... it is not unreasonable to think that the Brass Plates had a lot more doctrine, history, understanding, and relationship with Christ elements in it... that the ancient Patriarchs had and lived.
This was great thank you, although in Jeff's defense he often does say that it may have been the best word or words Joseph Smith could use or come up with to describe the images or thoughts coming to his mind as he translated that he knew and also that the modern day audience would understand. I really appreciate that he recognized and mentioned that in his vids. Something I always wonder though and feel has greater importance is how does he feel about the spiritual implications that are throughout the Book of Mormon. It often feels he skips this which is the greatest value of the Book of Mormon. I'd be interested to know his thoughts and feelings on these considering his deep devotion to Jesus Christ and things of spiritual matters. As he says - this is where the focus should be.
I would like to add that I loved his thoughts he shared on the allegory of the Olive Trees from Jacob 5. There are moments like this when he does cover the spiritual and Christ centered aspects of the Book of Mormon - it's just kind of rare. So I hope he'll share more of his thoughts on these things.
So what exactly was the point of the gold plates if JS wasn't translating the words from off the plates but instead was receiving revelation without the need of the plates to write the BoM?
Jack Burton: The plates served as a witness and evidence that there really was a recorded history. However, this is a good question that you should take up with Jesus and Moroni during the millennium when "all things will be made known." Among numerous other questions I have, I will be asking the same thing. Blake, I think you are completely off target. The overwhelming evidence is that the translation was a revelatory experience. Joseph didn't know anything about reformed Egyptian. He hardly knew anything about English. His wife said he could hardly compose a sentence. We have numerous non revelatory writings of Joseph Smith that testify that what Emma said was true. What would have been the point of the Urim and Thummim (U & T) if Joseph had the ability to translate on his own? We have historical accounts at various times, when the translating was going on, that the plates were hidden outside the house to keep them safe from the mobs trying to get their hands on them. We have Emma stating that even when the plates were in the house they sat on the table wrapped in a cloth while they were translating. There are no accounts whatsoever of Joseph looking at the plates while he was translating. We have witnesses tell us that the Egyptian figures would appear in the U & T with the English translation written below which Joseph would read and Oliver would record and then read back. Not until the translation was confirmed accurate did new Egyptian and English translation appear in the U & T. The fact that Joseph never asked Oliver where they left off is evidence that the translation process occurred as described. Joseph didn't need to know where they left off, he simply read what appeared in the U % T. Joseph never took any credit for the translation. He said, "It was translated by the gift and power of God." The idea that Joseph translated the B of M by reading the seer stone in a hat has been completed discredited. That story came from David Whitmer decades after he left the church. We know that a few of the D & C revelations were received in the seer stone, but not the B of M. Those involved in the translation like Joseph, Oliver, Emma all said it was done with the U & T. As a side line, wasn't that exactly how Mosiah translated the 24 gold plates of the Jardites none of whom he'd ever met and the last of whom had died some 500+ years before Mosiah was born? Furthermore, we have the Lord in a revelation in the D & C saying, "I have given Joseph the gift of translating." We also have Joseph saying, with regard to the revelations in the D & C and Pearl of Great Price, "I have never claimed to be anything but a man. I've made mistakes, but THERE ARE NO ERRORS IN THE REVELATIONS." I think it was Sidney Rigdon who stated after he and Joseph had spent a couple of hours "in the spirit" personally viewing and experiencing the three degrees of glory which are summarized in the 76th section of the D & C "While Joseph was still in the spirit, he dictated what we now have as the 76th section," which was only a small part of what the two had seen and experienced." Based on all of these historical facts the only conclusion we can come to is that EVERY WORD in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price was chosen by the Holy Ghost, not Joseph Smith. He could not possibly have made the statement, "There are no errors in the revelations" had he been choosing the words. If the Holy Ghost wanted to use words and phrases from the New Testament, so be it. All scripture comes from God.
Doesnt Solomons temple have a baptistry? The 3 oxen facing north, south, east and west for the 12 tribes of israel? The Brazen Sea or Molten Sea? Is it anachronistic really? Nephi built a replica of Solomons temple, which would have had a brazen sea as well. (if it was in mesoamerica they would have had the ore to make it and Nephi already had metallurgy experience) Was John the Baptist doing something brand new? or performing an established ordinance? My point is, we call it baptism, but there is evidence that it predates NT times and is not necessarily anachronistic. What word did they use in old testament instead of the word "baptism"? "washings" may be one.
Hi. Reformed Anglican, here. It seems like you Mormons could use Occam's Razor! Which is the simpler explanation: (1) Some guy 1800 years after Jesus' death met an angel (never mentioned in the Bible) who told him to go dig up some new holy book (that for some reason reads more like a poorly-written historical fantasy novel...???) that completely overturned millenia of Judeo-Christian tradition, is filled with historical/grammatical errors, and has no evidence to support it versus (2) A psychologically troubled child started a new religious movement with its own new Bible and ended up getting a bit carried away. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Come to the true Christ and live!
So according to the expansion theory that Ostler proposes did an ancient prophet named Nephi know that someone named Jesus would be born 600 years after his family left Jerusalem, that he would atone for the sins of the world, die on a cross (an instrument of torture that may not have been invented yet) and be resurrected? Did he perform Christian baptisms hundreds of years before Christ? It seems like Joseph Smith's worldview could influence the vocabulary and explain KJV language in the text. But it cannot explain away the degree to which 6th Century B.C.E. prophets speak about and engage in practices that are extremely anachronistic.
It actually does, though. Blake's explanation is that this was expanded ex post facto. Make sure you fully read his article: www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V20N01_68.pdf
I disagree with Blake's theory. He admitted that Joseph claimed he received the translation directly from God. Why don't we just take him at his word? It matches the journal accounts of the scribes as well. My opinion: When Joseph looked through the Urim & Thummim he literally saw the English translation in front of him and he simply dictated it to the scribes. So, God didn't give revelation through "feelings" and then Joseph used his own vocabulary to describe it (Methodist / Modern Christian / etc), Joseph didn't pick what words to use, he simply dictated what he saw on the page. If the theory is that God had to convey feelings and Joseph had to think of how to explain that in English, then why are there words that don't exist in any English dictionary, like Ziff and Rameumtum? Joseph couldn't have written them since they weren't in his vocabulary. That completely contradicts Blake's theory. The journal entries explain that Joseph had to spell these words to the scribes. Also, if Joseph were picking the words, he would have used 18th century English, but the Book of Mormon is written in the same style of Old English as the Bible (~ 15th century). So, why are there anachronisms in the Book of Mormon? God most likely delegated to someone in the spirit world to prepare the English translation so that Joseph could read it through the Urim & Thummim (maybe Mormon or Moroni?). This Angel probably did the translation just prior to Joseph's birth and they would have had access to the full New Testament as well as knowledge of events occurring in Joseph's time period. In fact, they probably had visions of the future as well, as many prophets have experienced in scripture.
Blake explains in his original article that the expansion theory isn't a perfect theory to begin with. In his podcast he even states that wordprint studies, inverted parallelisms, a different cultural grammar not specific to the one used in the 19th century, and the use of certain words, etc., can be used as evidence against the expansion theory. What he does say though is that any coherent explanation of the Book of Mormon must accept to some extent the expansion theory. (Interestingly, the vast majority LDS scholars today accept varying portions of Ostler's expansion theory.) Also, no, the use of other vocabulary may not actually contradict his theory. There is the logical possibility that Joseph was given some kind of mental stimuli on the part of God to render the word as it would have been said more or less in English which isn't beyond the scope of Ostler's theory. Nowhere does he claim that God can't just give him the spelling of a word. In his article he cites how Joseph could feel pure intelligence coursing through him in the process. There could have been times when Joseph received the word from God and dictated the rest according to how Ostler describes it. Joseph also made several doctrinal changes to the Book of Mormon in 1 Nephi 11 and 20, so it doesn't seem that if he really believed the translation came directly from God, he wouldn't have had the audacity to change the text ex post facto. Further, if it came from God, why would it transmit errors specific to the KJV bible? faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/scholar-survey-kjv-translation-errors-in-bom-isaiah/
I don't rely on any man to tell me what to think or feel about the Book of Mormon. My knowledge is only based on The SPIRIT OF REVELATION AND PROPHECY. I'm very familiar with those manifestations during my study experience on the Book of Mormon. What else can I say!
SO, I SHOULD BELIEVE, OF OUR TIME, THE DAYS SINCE THE VISION OR THE OF DIRECTION TO JOSEPH SMIRH, JR. THAT IT IS ACRONYSTIC OF OUR TIME TO ASK OTHERS , WHO DO YOU BELIEVE , WROTE THE BOOK OF MORMON, ANOTHER TESTAMENT OF JESUS CHRIST AND WHO BROUGHT IT FORTH TO THE WORLD OR, DRUM ROLL PLEASE, DID JOSEPH SMITH JR, WRITE THE BOOK OF MORMON. DID I GET THIS RIGHT?😅
D&C 1:23-24 speaks to this principle of God speaking to His servants in their weakness and according to their language - "That the fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed by the weak and the simple unto the ends of the world, and before kings and rulers. 24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding." Ether 12:39 likewise indicates this: "39 And then shall ye know that I have seen Jesus, and that he hath talked with me face to face, and that he told me in plain humility, even as a man telleth another in mine own language, concerning these things;" I believe even scriptures such as Alma 29:8 speaks to this sort of thing: "For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true." Thank you for sharing this video. I wish more of us could understand these concepts. Many are being deceived and led astray because they won't look deeply enough, with faith, to find these sorts of answers.
If 'Passed off' suggests Joseph was attempting to fit a criteria that conformed to an achronistic scholarly interpretation of Hebrew culture then no. Those who believe in the gift and power of God in the Church suggest Joseph wasn't attempting to do anything other than to translate a series of plates given to him the way he knew how. Simple as that. The video indicates that it is much more complicated in a scholarly approach, than simply to critique the Book of Mormon based on the similarities or conveniences of 19th century Christianity. Scholarship is or should be much less interested in that prejudice albeit practical in a godless mindset, and more in discovery which is to look at evidence for and against this possibility which scholarly believers will pursue further than most
Interesting. I know there has been very little scholarly discovery as you say, but if you are familiar with the Bible scholar Dan McClellan, he suggests that the current consensus is that it is a 19th century work. This video addresses that fact that it could be both somehow, and you state that believers think it could only be ancient. I think more work could be done, but it is a bit confusing in the mean time.
The Mound Builder Myth View of the Hebrews The Late War KJV Bible All these contribute to the text. The anachronisms in the book of Mormon are countless and overwhelmingly damning to it being a historical text. One must also account for Joseph being a treasure digger and practice in the occult and magic. The same seer stone he used to translate with was the same one he used to look for treasure. the same one that he was arrested, tried, and convicted for fraud and treasure seeking in 1826.
@@marathon-3hr So you are gonna ignore the pieces of evidence Blake cites in the article? Because you must be prepared to explain those away in order for your statements to be taken seriously. www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V20N01_68.pdf " 1. Resemblances between Israelite law, international treaties, and laws gov- erning war and oath forms (Rasmussen 1982; R. Johnson 1982; Morise 1982). 2. Hebrew, Egyptian, and classical names which appear in the Book of Mormon but not in the Bible (Nibley 1973, 192-96; Nibley 1957, 242-54; Nibley 1948, 85-90; Carlton and Welch 1981; Tvedtnes 1977). Though many of these names could be biblical variants, others are difficult to explain as Joseph Smith's inventions. Paanchi, Pahoran, and Pacumeni, for example, are Egyptian names which are sometimes transliterated exactly as they stand in the Book of Mormon, while Korihor is a close variant of Herihor, prede- cessor to 'Amon-Pi'ankhy in about 734 B.C. (Baer 1973). 3. Description of military, social, and political institutions of sixth-century Israel corroborated by the Lachish letter and other recently discovered sources (Nibley 1982b; Nibley 1952, 4-12, 20-26, 107-18; Nibley 1957, 47-111; R. Smith 1984). 4. Accurate and consistent geographical detail (England 1982; Nibley 1952,123-28). 5. Ancient forms of government (Bushman 1976; Nibley 1973, 281-82; Nibley 1952, 20-26; Nibley 1957, 82-86). 6. Evidence that the Book of Mormon assigned value to the cardinal direc- tions with south representing the sacred and north the profane (Alma 22; 46:17; Eth. 7:6). It also presents a social organization revolving around a ritual center from which government, territorial order, and communal sanctity flowed. The moral order of life and understanding of the covenant were also linked to territoriality (Olsen 1983). These symbolic aspects of territoriality are common in ancient societies. " As well as an accurate understanding of covenant renewal festivals, the prophetic commission and throne theophany, and the prophetic lawsuits. I'll be waiting...
If he believes his doctrine is true and not wanting to seak the truth then he is waisting his time. God cannot be deceived and He will not bless the wicked.
The only way to truly understand the book of Mormon is to study the mound builder theories of the time. The book of Mormon is clearly based on the mound builder myth, and to say that the critics of the book of Mormon stop before they figure out the truth is completely untrue and misleading. If the book of Mormon was what it claims to be, “ the truest book on earth” then why don’t we see church leaders debating in an open forum? The reason is because they would be humiliated with the overwhelming evidence that is out there, also because the church leaders are too busy building malls and creating fake companies with your tithing money.
I think you’re right that many church leaders would be humiliated in an open debate forum by the world’s antagonist experts. But that’s merely because the church leaders are not philosophically sophisticated, experienced debaters and apologists. They are called to their positions under different pretenses. Looking at the leadership hierarchy of the church to be experts in all things related to the Church is silly. You can understand and appreciate that, correct? The leaders in the institutional structure don’t need to be, and certainly aren’t, theologians and apologists of the utmost caliber. Not every apostle is Paul.
@@eS-ql7vm Thanks for responding, I’m not a professional but I can read, and that’s all you need to be able to do to make these so called prophets of God look like a fool. In recent years, the church has had to come clean about its history, not because it wanted to, but because it was going to be sued if it didn’t. I can’t believe how many LDS members don’t know the true story of Joseph Smith, the Joseph Smith that is on the churches own website. He was a treasure digger, created an illegal bank, and snuck away in the middle of the night to avoid paying penalties, a child molester, as he slept with children as young as 14, and a treasonous, as he burn down a printing press because he didn’t like what was said in its newspaper. The Bible says to be very cautious of people that declare themselves as profits. I take the statement very seriously and if somebody declares himself as a profit, I’m going to leave no stone unturned to find out if it’s true or not. Now we know that the profits of today are building malls with our tithing money And creating illegal companies to hide money, this is all disgusting and very easy to prove. You don’t have to be anyone to make these prophets look like fools. If this church was true, these so-called profits should be able to come out from under their rock and prove it, after all, they have God on their side, right? No they don’t so be safe under your rock prophets!
The Book of Mormon refers to crucifixion hundreds of years BEFORE the Persians invented this brutal execution method and therefore obviously before the Romans adopted this practice into their own executions. But its clear that the New Testament sitting on Joe Smith's table contains references and language about this. What is the "Reformed Egyptian" word for "crucifixion". How can you know since there is no evidence that Joe Smith's "Reformed Egyptian" ever even existed? The principle of Ockahm's Razor requires us to choose the simple and most obvious answer. The Book of Mormon was no "revelation fro God" through Joe Smith's magic, treasure-hunting rock. He copied crucifixion language from the King James translation of the Bible, from which he plagiarized entire passages verbatim, including the KJT's unique translational anomalies.
1. Why did Joseph Smith recieve a record written on gold plates when he actually channeled from a stone in a hat? 2. Why were lds people not told this for over 150 yrs.? 3. Why would Hebrew Isrealites write a record in "Reformed Egyptian" , a language which they did not speak , and which does not exist, upon plates which were not used (and likely did not exist either)?
1. Because you can't have an expanded text without an ancient underlying text. You can't render a record that doesn't exist. 2. Most people for a hundred years after the publication of the Book didn't know about the specifics. Kind of like how the King Follett discourse wasn't known to most of the Church until almost a half a century after it was recorded. 3. First, Reformed Egyptian is nowhere stated that its a spoken language; second, the plates were used in the process. And no, it is not unlikely they existed. Did you even read the article? www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V20N01_68.pdf
Out of all Mormon apologists Blake Ostler is the most high on copium: We should just completely disregard how witnesses and Joseph Smith described the BofM and the translation process and how the Book of Mormon describes itself and the translation process because then you are left having to explain how a book could be the most correct book on earth when it’s original translation was filled with errors and anachronisms. Also it only by obscuring what it means for an ancient record to be translated by the gift and power of god that we can salvage our worldview. It worked for the Book of Abraham with the catalyst theory right?
I watched. Thank you for providing further insight into this perspective.
Super cool that you watched, and replied in a polite way.
Pastor Jeff is the saintest of saints. He always replies politely.
“Fight criticism with curiosity” is his mantra.
I attend a Spanish ward where I often translate to English for sacrament meeting by listening to the Spanish speech and speaking English into a microphone simultaneously without written aids. In Spanish, this type of live translation via dictation is referred to as “interpretación” (interpretation). This is because it is essentially impossible for an “intérprete” to provide a faithful word-for-word verbal translation of speech they are hearing in real-time, especially when there are idiomatic expressions or highly-specific cultural references involved. They best they can do is provide an interpretation of the speech that the listener can understand in their own language and cultural context. This means I will often replace idioms and expressions in Spanish with rough equivalents in English or paraphrase certain anecdotes that wouldn’t make sense in the English/American cultural context. Because a literal translation of those words and concepts would fail to convey the intended meaning. I imagine it was much the same way with Joseph Smith.
Just what I was thinking but you said it perfectly.
I have translated In my time as well, and this is a very real case scenario. Sometimes however, if you come across a term that seems to have no equivalent in another language, you simply use that term. Is is very common today with people using terms from other languages because there is no equivalent in the language you speak. Joseph Smith surely had to do this a time or two when a word was used that allowed for no English equivalent or adequate substitution.
Excellent comment!
Except when you go to the original language Greek there is no misunderstanding. Watch my Playlist Man in Our Image!
Wonderfully presented in a modern context
Blake was my neighbor growing up! we always liked his talks. never knew he was this big
From my first reading, the most compelling evidence to me was the undeniable presence of the holy ghost or spirit in me. I had went to church about 10 times in my life. I didn't know what that really feels like. I made it about 1/3 way through on my first read. II knew almost nothing about the LDS church up to that point. Not a skeptic, but also not actively seeking out anything religion up to that time. But when I read that book the first time -- it was like waking up for the first time. My mind and my body was filled with electricity (like when your foot goes to sleep then is waking up, that type of tingling). Over the next week to finish the book -- same experience. No one had to tell me, or convince me. I already know the book is true. What was also interesting to me, after my fourth or fifth read I went back to the Old and New Testament which seemed much more clear than before.
Feelings don't equal facts.
Thank you for sharing this! I had a spiritual witness upon reading it as well. I was floored.
@@fade777777 That is a very common Shapiro ideology. But what we are talking about is Testimony. Do you have a feeling that Jesus is the Christ? Maybe you call it a witness. Some might reference that feeling coming from the Holy Ghost or the Holy Spirit. Jesus taught that “when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me” (John 15:26)
To me that is not a feeling. For me it is a fact that I know when the Spirit of Truth comes to me by the Comforter -- which testifies of Jesus Christ, and all other truth from God.
and in verse 17, "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." Most of John 15 speaks to this very personal relationship with God. I pray that you may have peace and joy in this life, and the next.
@iwantcheesypuffs facts don't care about feelings.. you've listened to that saying, right?
Well.. the spirit of truth reveals truth directly to our spirit.. it bypasses the heart, which is deceptive above all else.. as the scripture says. Please, for the love of all that is holy. Place you faith EXCLUSIVLY in Christ. Joseph is dead.. his life led to death because the wages of sin is death. Christ is alive.. because he did not sin.. and his spirit leads to life. He is the only true Shepard.. smith was just a greedy, selfish story teller that died in a blaze of misery.. JUST like Mohamed and all others that came after Christ. Leave Mormonism. friend.. and experience true and everlasting life in Jesus Christ. (Not the son of the father that lives near Kolob who is fiction)
@@iwantcheesypuffs this exactly! Thank you for saying this. It’s not a feeling, but a witness. Something that cannot be argued against. Don’t let people who are against the church get you down. They are children of God as well, even if they are being contentious in how they treat us. The alternative to the contention is to stop burning straw men, but this is much easier said than done. God bless!
I'm glad I found your channel. I have only seen a few videos so far and I think you may one of the best LDS youtubers. You deal with Pastor Jeff very well and competently.
This Expansion Theory makes sense. I have received inspirations in blessings that are clear but are difficult to convery as clearly. I have often sought for this kind of revelation or clarity of meaning and often struggle to explain the visions and feeling in words that capture the same given. The closest I have been able to come in discussions is to share ideas that are familiar and compare and contrast them so that people can recall or query the meaning and feeling and allow the spirit to assist in transferring that vision to the recipient, but that requires preparation and practice to send verbally. Also see this scripture: 3 NEPHI 17:16-17. There is a type of communication that I think is refferred to as the gift of tongues, glossolalia. This is thought to be the language of the heavens where heavenly concepts are fused with language.
So good. I just wanted to add a thought: The Nephites knew so much more about Christ because they never fully apostatized. They had continual prophetic guidance and leadership up until the actual visitation of Christ in the Americas. Their prophets received more and more- line upon line, continually.
Contrast that to the Bible. The last prophet is Malachi around 400 BC. So, for 400 years the Jews are in a state of increasing general apostasy. From Isaiah (which Book of Mormon prophets also had) to some of the last Old Testament prophets you start to get some incredible specifics about Christ. Where he will be born, that he will be crucified between two thieves, sold for 30 pieces of silver…. And so on. But then, it just stops. The Jews then enter a state of centuries-long general apostasy.
The story is different in the Book of Mormon and more and more is revealed, as a faithful group under prophet leadership always persists.
Anyway, just wanted to share that thought.
What makes you think people would automatically fall into apostasy if further prophesy isn't constantly happening? What if what they needed to know was already given? What if there was no need for further prophesy for the Jewish people before christ came in the flesh?
@@coachmarc2002 There sure was a need. That's why John the Baptist was sent to prepare the way for the Lord and prepare the hearts and minds of the people. Judaism was fractured and divided with many sects teaching various interpretations of scripture. Various Rabbi's would claim to have the best interpretation and would clamor for followers. Judaism was in a state of general apostasy. This really isn't hard to see. The Scribes, the Pharisees, the Saducees, the Essenes, the Harodians, the Galileans, the Nazarenes, the Zealots, etc. etc. Which sect had it right? None had it completely right. This is the effect when there is a loss or prophetic authority and current revelation. General apostasy always results and the Biblical pattern shows many general apostasies and restorations. Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Elijah,...on and on... and then John the Baptist.
Christianity has been in a similar state for a long while with so many parallels to ancient Judaism. Many various sects, some agreeing on some "major" points (like some ancient Jewish sects), but all different. Instead of Rabbi's there are "preachers."
Remember, the Jews had the scriptures, they had the revealed word of God. Yet, they nearly almost completely missed their own Messiah! Without John the Baptist, Christ may have been immediately rejected, or at least rejected to a far greater degree.
In these last days, just prior to the Lord's second advent, God has sent another restoring prophet, Joseph Smith. That's the Biblical pattern and precedent. It also makes a lot of sense. This was done so that faith might increase in the earth and that men might know how to look for the Son of God, just before He comes again to the earth.
Luke 16:16 The prophets were until John.
Hebrews 1
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Jesus Christ is our living Prophet, Priest and King!
@@chrishumphries7489 LDS prophets and apostles are apostate from the scriptures. They do not worship the true and living God of the Bible but rather an 'exalted man' from another planet.
“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see,” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345).
That is one reason why the LDS church is very anti Christian.
Joseph Smith said . . .
(Regarding Joseph Smith’s alleged first vision where celestial personages appeared to him) . . .
“My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right - and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were all corrupt . . .” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 1, p. 5-6).
“What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world,” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, p. 270).
(In questions directed to Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism . . . ).
First-“Do you believe the Bible?”
If we do, we are the only people under heaven that do, for there are none of the religious sects of the day that do.”
Third-“Will everybody be damned, but Mormons?”
Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness.” (Teachings, page 119).
Brigham Young said. . .
“But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong,”
(Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, 1855, p. 171).
John Taylor said . . .
“We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense . . . Myself and hundreds of the Elders around me have seen its pomp, parade, and glory; and what is it? It is a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol; it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century,”
(Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, 1858, p. 167).
@@jlewis8145 Context: In Luke 16:16 Jesus is challenging the Pharisees who are trying to use the authority of the Law of Moses over all things and therefore reject Christ.
Jesus responds "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it."
"The Prophets" were what was known as the the Old Testament. "The Law" was the law of Moses. This is how the Jews spoke and understood these terms. Jesus was teaching that the Law of Moses and "The Prophets" (Old Testament) points to Him and that He is setting up the Kingdom of God.
This is not a statement about "all prophets", for why would Christ give the advice He gave in Matthew 7:15-20? Why would Peter and Paul and others continue to receive revelation and prophesy? Why are many prophets mentioned in acts including one named Agabus who prophesies of the captivity of Paul? Why would John prophesy of the end of the world in the Book of Revelation? Why are future prophets specifically mentioned there also?
See, God would not cease to send or have prophets after the death and resurrection of Christ. God doesn't change His patterns. The Bible is plain about this and about many prophets after Christ.
You keep mentioning "The true and living God." That is who we worship. However true and living indicates current and active revelation from Heaven. We claim "the true and living Church." Why? Because God actively guides and directs it. To many Christians, God's words seems to have ceased with the completion of the Bible (which wasn't compiled until the 4th century AD).
God continues to speak, continues to reveal and continues to actively guide in these days, just as in the entirety of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.
I once read a translation of the Tao Te Ching that mentioned modern farm machinery. I also recall the list of musical instruments in Daniel 3, and all those Renaissance paintings showing scenes from the Gospels with European settings and trappings.
When I watch foreign movies with subtitles, sometimes I can understand enough of the language to get some insight into how they did the subtitles. Strictly literal translations would generally make for really clunky subtitles.
When I learned Spanish as a missionary, I had fun playing around with untranslatable expressions. One of my favorite absurdities was: "Soplemos esta coyuntura!"
I think Jeff understands the Book of Mormon pretty well.
Being born and raised speaking Spanish and in a Latin country and in one culture, and then moving to the US learning a new language and experiencing multiple cultures since then, this resonates so much and makes a lot more sense. Thanks for this!
I think the usage of the phrase "white as driven snow" to describe the fruit of the tree of life was very interesting. Very clearly Shakespearean language. It makes me curious about what the idiom that Nephi used originally was to describe the whiteness of the fruit.
One key to understanding this is that neither God nor the Holy Ghost nor his angels communicate with us in our mortal tongue. They communicate with us in a purer spiritual language that transmits thought and feeling, not words. That is not to see they CANT communicate in our tongue, but that the purest form of communication is via spirit to spirit.
It is our own language that takes those thoughts and puts them into words in our own way to make sense of it.
I had a vivid revelation a few months ago one night. I saw in this vision a book before me, opened with words on both pages. It resembled the Bible. I read the words...but not literally, more like I "absorbed" the words.
The words I read talked about a group of the House of Israel living in and around ancient Canaan at the same time as the Egyptian pharaohs between the time of Joseph and the Exodus. It also said that the people were in mourning because their ability to make their voice heard had become cut off...and that a wicked Pharaoh had taken over Egypt and was now persecuting them.
The vision was vivid and very real to me. And, as I said above, I did not literally "read" the words...it was more like the story was relayed to my mind.
I have no doubt this is how Joseph saw and interpreted the story from the Book of Mormon as well.
I feel like that was a complicated way of saying that God gave the Translation of the Book of Mormon in the language of the people at the time it was given. I feel like the church teaches that fairly clearly.
Also as a side note, the Isaiah chapters are only a problem if you adhere to the divisionist argument for the book of Isaiah which originated due to scholars’ unbelief that Isaiah could have made the prophecies that he did. Isaiah lived about 100 years before Lehi so there is no reason that they wouldn’t have had his writings in the Brass plates of Laban if you believe those were really his prophecies and not some anonymous author writing down things after the fact and then attributing the words to Isaiah.
Here’s an excerpt from a criticism of the Expansion Theory for those interested:
The “Expanded” Book of Mormon?
Stephen E. Robinson
The bottom line is this: the proposition that Joseph Smith expanded on a genuinely ancient document which he received from an angel, that the Book of Mormon is part ancient and part modern, presents no fewer obstacles to the unbiased mind and requires no less an exercise of faith, than the proposition that the Book is entirely of ancient authorship. In trying to ride two horses at once the expansion theory falls between them both. It will not ultimately satisfy naturalistic scholars, those who refuse “to go beyond conclusions justified by the evidence or allowed by logic,” because it allows certain of the faith propositions of the Church. Yet it abandons or alters other foundational propositions of the Church and of its members who walk by faith.
In summary, then, let me say that the expansion theory asks us, without discussion, proof or justification, to accept as givens three a priori assumptions which are inimical to the teachings of the Church and which are, I believe, merely camouflaged capitulation to the arguments of the Church’s opponents. Second, the theory is inconsistent in its treatment of parallels. It first states very properly that the mere existence of parallels proves nothing in terms of relationship and dependence (Ostler 67), then it turns around and without demonstration invokes just such parallels as evidence for dependence and hence for expansion. Finally, the theory is inconsistent in its use of the critical empirical method, rejecting this or that claim of the Book of Mormon because it involves divine agency, and then proposing alternative views which themselves rely upon divine agency. There is nothing to be gained by trading the traditional understanding of the Book of Mormon for the expansion theory.
Well done, Jacob. Blake has been shedding valuable insights since he originally shared these views in the mid 1980s. Brilliant mind. He's put in incredibly hard and lengthy work!
Wow, what why doesn’t Blake share these amazing findings and show the critics they are wrong? What’s the afraid of if the truth is on his side?😢
Jacob the question is - is the Book of Mormon exactly what it claims to be on the title page - yes or no. That is the only question that you should be asking - period.
Since Blake developed his expansion theory, we have come to understand that the Book of Mormon was dictated in Early Modern English, a language already extinct long before the time of Joseph Smith. Indeed, Joseph's holographs never include Early Modern English.
It should also be noted with second Isaiah, many believe Isaiah received a vision of Babylonian captivity and wrote these things in advance, to be kept by his followers and revealed in due time. Which means they could’ve been on the plates of brass.
The more common explanation (and more widely believed), however, is that Isaiah wrote something else. He wrote text to a future Israel in captivity with his pre captivity context, which his followers then took and changed to more directly speak to those in captivity. Which under expansion theory, can be an explanation. Jacob was quoting Isaiah pre change, or even changing it himself, but through revelation it was changed to what we know it as now (2nd Isaiah)
God speaks to us in a language we can understand- it makes sense that the BOM is expressed in the vernacular of the 19th century and in a way that we can understand most clearly today because even though it was originally written in ancient times, it was written for our day and for this people. The wisdom of God is so great! I love the Book of Mormon and am so grateful for the clear language that is used in it.
Personally I rejoice over the idea that God reveals himself through human beings according to their heart, mind and cultural backround.. This actually may explain why God may sound so rude at times, or why Paul went of about women having to be silent.. I am pretty certain if God would reveal the Book of Mormon today to Präsident Nelson, it would meet the tone of the time, simply because it comes through a human being of that time... and this is what makes truth seeking so exciting. I love the invitation to seek truth in all books, for who else would and could say something like this unless her or she is certain that truth can be found anywhere and everywhere.... The Book of Mormon makes quiete clear how just and loving God is, and it teaches truth so clear and beautifully...
Thank you. This was truly eye opening and has helped me gravely to understand more about the translation process that Joseph would have used. I love the Book of Mormon and I know it is the word of God. Regards from, Gina Mac of Queensland, Australia. 😊❤️🙏🇦🇺✡️🧔♀️🪔🇮🇱
I was so happy to hear this! This was exactly the answer and thoughts I had to Jeff, but one can only say so much with limited characters. It was awesome to have a scholar back up what I thought in much more eloquent words. Keep this stuff coming!
This was a confirmation to a spiritual impression I received just this past weekend as I pondered comments I had made against some online critics of the Church. I had gotten into something of a debate with someone over the authenticity of Joseph Smith's multiple records of the same revelations that were altered slightly each time. I have been holding off on my response but earlier had asked the critic the question: Have you ever had a dream or vision and ever tried to explain it in regular language? I have, and years on, I still don't have the correct expression of what I experienced. I felt like that was a very simple way to explain the difficulty of penning revelation.
It has been the pondering over my question that has distilled new insights around the use of language in translation that this podcast has been able to put into clear words for me. When my friend cited 19th century "New Testament" language in the Book of Mormon, I refused to believe that because for the last 5 years I have been immersing myself in ancient Semitic studies particularly in relation to Judaism, and treaty/covenant making... and I felt like the spirit had been confirming for me the antiquity of the Book of Mormon through my studies.
I guess both sides of the coin in translation are satisfied in what Mormon states are the "mistakes of men" and condemn not the things of God.
Thanks for your videos!
This is a super video. Thanks because due this video I am going to read more the Book of Mormon . (I would like to see these words translated into Spanish)
You can get a a Spanish language Book of Mormon- look up a local congregation and anyone there can get you one
Loved this so much. I’m reading again through the BOM and it seems each time these anachronisms bother me a bit more. I hadn’t heard this theory before (mostly because I hadn’t actively sought after it) but I did feel the spirit testify to the veracity of the theory itself
Yes, that"the spirit witnesses to me as I'm reading", is mostly why I believe and have faith in the Book of Mormon. And I love the Book of Mormon so much!!!
My Greatest testimony of the BOM is the power of change it brought into my life and the miracles I witnessed as I prayed and read and the process of my repentance it was so powerful but yes I too always wondered about the ancranyms but the fruits outweighed the doubts so much ch more powerfully but this was very good to hear
I have understood this theory instinctively since I learned to speak Korean as a missionary 34 years ago. There are words and concepts in one language that simply do not exist in the other and vica-versa.
I understood that thanks to Ben Spackman who talks about that in length. Revelation is like Blake Oster puts it, a co-creation between God and man by the time it gets to us.
Ben Spackman is great! His ideas are fascinating
Ben is my cousin and I find his ideas irritating
This video was so enlightening. I am your new biggest fan!
Most of the gotcha' critics insist on the thesis/premise that the book is a "history" and must be evaluated as if Joseph was translating the text in the same manner that a scholar at Harvard would translate an ancient text . . . obviously not true according to Joseph. (David Whitmer and Emma Hale's descriptions written down 2nd hand decades after the fact, are simply unreliable . . . memory studies support me on this). The Book of Mormon came through revelation, is meant to be "another testament of Christ" and not a history or archeology text. Ostler's theory is spot on and clearly supported by the evidence.
Question for Latter Day Saints:
Could you imagine an alternate reality in which the Book of Mormon was a work of 19th century fiction? If so then how would it differ from the Book of Mormon that you believe to be the word of God?
You would have to throw the entire Book of Mormon... out because no one would have come up with anything that is found in the Book of Mormon... let alone the collective content it has. A 19th century work of fiction would have zero similarity. Nor would anyone have dreamed up such a book in the first place. Anyone who has actually read the Book of Mormon knows that Joseph did not write it... nor could any man or group of men write it. It is exactly what it claims to be... a translation "by the gift and power of God" of an abridgement of ancient records... specifically tailored for our modern audience. Honestly.... Read it.
@@mrsjonse could you please be a little more specific? What exactly is in the Book of Mormon that could not exist in a fraudulent work?
@@dukeofsahib4967 Have you read the Book of Mormon? The entire premise, content, Spirit, ancient and modern elements, etc... would not and could not come together in a fraudulent work. No one could or would come up with or even think about coming up with it. Imagine if the Book of Mormon did not exist. Now come up with the 500+ pages of content--to say nothing of the entire story behind it coming forth. To say nothing of the 2/3 of the record that we have not been given yet because we are still trying to prove that it is fraud.
The origin story and the content themselves are the greatest proof outside of the witness of the Spirit that the Book of Mormon is true and of God. For 200 years every atTEMPT imaginable has been made to provide an alternative origin... and none are even close to credible. God knows what He is doing. The Book of Mormon is of Divine origin... designed to help the honest in heart get nearer to God in an age of confusion, ego, pride, and unbelief. It cannot be refuted--God designed it to outsmart and confound the "wise."
@@mrsjonse I have read the Book of Mormon and have many concerns. First of all there is nothing original in any of Joseph Smith’s claims. He came along during a time of restorationist movements and started his own.
The idea of Indians being the descendants of Israelites did not start with Joseph Smith either. He conveniently was told by Moroni that he couldn’t retrieve the plates for 4 years. That’s quite a bit of time to hammer out a story.
The introduction of the Book of Mormon had to be changed because DNA research did not reflect that the lamanites were the “principal” ancestors of the Indians. The Book of Mormon has also had to go through 7 major editions in which words that aren’t even real had to be taken out. Words had to be added in. It’s everything you’d expect from a fraudulent work.
Also not to mention that we have zero archaeological evidence for a civilization that mobilized armies made up of hundreds of thousands of men. Not one coin, sword, synagogue, temple, or manuscript has ever been found. Just what you’d expect from a made up story
@@dukeofsahib4967 Thanks for your input.
Joseph smith could not reason out these things according to what he understood of the Bible. They are different in meaning
Great channel - Thank you for this!
I’m an Evangelical Christian in Utah. I once studied with some LDS missionaries for several weeks. Eventually they asked if they could bring a guest with them. That guest ended up being Blake Ostler. During our conversation, Ostler asked my wife what she thought that we would be doing in Heaven for all eternity. “Worshipping God,” she replied. Ostler then shrugged and flippantly said, “Eh, I’ve got better things to do.”
Yes, you heard that right. The missionaries looked nearly as shocked as we felt.
That is shocking. An LDS told me that the restored gospel is all about the promise of eternal families and progression. It makes me feel like God isn’t enough for them or they lack imagination and think we will just float around singing songs. Personally, when it comes to eternity with God I know it’s gonna be epic, exciting, and simply amazing . But LDS are so attached to this progression idea and having celestial families. I believe God has great things in store for eternity and I don’t need the “celestial kingdom promises” to look forward to life beyond this life. God is the creator of joy, laughter, and fun. We will have a blast in Heaven and more importantly be with the Almighty God and creator of all.
Everything we enjoy on this earth all the good is only a glimpse of heaven.
I also think it’s cool how revelation talks refers to the new Jerusalem as a city. Makes me think there will be lots to do.
Revelation 21:2
I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.
I find it very hard to believe that our Heavenly Father created us JUST to worship him forever. That's not love. He wants more for us. We worship him with our love because of how perfectly He loves us. But that's not our one and only purpose. Parts of this life mirror what heavenly life will be like, for example the city in Heaven we read about. We are made in His image. The family structure also mirrors our relationship with Him. We love our parents for giving us life as a microcosm of the way we love Him for creating us and giving us life. It is not that crazy of an idea that the family structure will be mirrored in Heaven as well. That we will have families, that we will have duties other than just worshiping our Father. It baffles me that people believe our Father created humans and gave us life just so we could worship Him for eternity, full stop. Of course we will worship him for eternity - with our love. But that doesn't mean there won't be so much more to life in Heaven. If a man had children and openly admitted he did so "so they will worship me forever" we would all know instinctively that was an insanely selfish reason to have kids. Good fathers have children because they have enough love to give and because they want their children to live a full and happy life with purpose, they want their kids to become all that he is. Our Heavenly Father is not only a good father, he is the BEST father. I wish people would take more time to pray about this and ask Him. "Father, was I created to worship you for eternity in Heaven?" Because I know when I ask Him this, He tells me "You were created for so much more than you can even imagine. I require your obedience and our relationship relies on you loving me as I love you. My will for you is to spend eternity with me. But you were created for so much more than just to be a vessel of worship for me. One day, you will understand."
If Joseph had only copied the reformed Egyptian text from the BoM plates , we would know what the original text has to say.
Wow!
Wonderful exploration.
What version of the Bible do you use???? All of my Bible translations I have only has Isaiah...no 2nd or 3rd. Those books are not in my BOM
I would imagine there being a Pentecost at the ancient temple in Jerusalem when the temple was dedicated.
Excellent explanation. Does this not bring to light the shortsightedness and lack of scholarship of Jeff McCullough? The more I watch him the more I am convinced he is trying to subtly lead us down another path.
Yeah I have to agree, he's studying the BOM academically and he's going to continue to just keep sharing his concerns in a very sweet/respectful way, and ultimately will start leading well-intentioned members away
Maybe. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt in the meantime. If he is willing to be intellectually honest, he'll do much good. If not, he will need to be called out.
@@tommacari4103 The Book of Mormon often defends itself:
2 Nephi 33:11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye-for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness.
I have felt this almost from the get-go. A well- intending person, but I don't feel the spirit when he is going over his BOM "findings". He is taking a purely secular/puritanical view and leaving out the beauty of the scriptures through the spirit. I don't listen to him anymore because honestly, I don't feel edified, but rather am left just feeling more questions and just blah. I can see how it would lead away members who are so caught up in his 'seemingly' innocent/ unifying approach.
I find it mildly amusing when people who only speak one language talk about translation. What it must be or what it cannot be.
@@gordianknot9595 Are you multilingual?
@@gordianknot9595 There were indeed goats.
Hyrum spent 4 years studying religion at Dartmouth College.
He then spent 4 years sharing his education with Joseph.
Your point...?
Thank you for your research and insights. Such a blessing to those striving to learn and build faith.
The Book of Mormon was given by revelation and can therefore only be fully understood by revelation. But rebellion and acceptance cannot exist together.
Thank you thoughtful faith for this video! U did a great job in the debate on Apologia Studios too BTW! Those dudes are a little more argumentative and disrespectful to LDS than Hello Saints pastor Jeff is. No matter how much you think you have the truth, nobody ought to be disrespectful of others for what they honestly believe. Keep up the good work! I try to share scriptures in the comments wherever I can to help the cause! Peace!
Is that video on here? I agree. I find Apologia really rub me the wrong way and they throw words around like "respectful dialogue" which is clearly not how they approach dialogue with members of the Church.
@@saspen3 the debate was with you and another LDS against a black and Hispanic Apologia guy. It was on their channel that I watched it. You're right, they preach "respectful dialogue", then they do not always use it with Latter Day Saints!
I just find Apologia sometimes says things disrespectfully, like Mormon gets pulled away from the TRUTH, FEISTY Mormon girl defends Mormonism or missionary who cannot answer (the exact questions) they are asking him at the time and a picture of his eyes looking upwards (like he is ditzy).
They also record people without telling them and pick and choose who they put on UA-cam. Technically they have the right on public property, but if the Hello Saints guy can be more respectful, they should too! I guess they could be worse though!
What is crazy to think is that there are people out there that will say because Latterday Saints go into such great depth and details in their explanations of religious texts that they are just inventing ways around being utterly wrong (explaining away). And if Latterday Saints present little explanation to inconsistencies those same critics will use those inconsistencies as reasons why they are wrong. In other words, if one has already decided someone is wrong, there is little any mortal can do to convince them otherwise. It is my belief that It is those people that can only be convinced by God's Spirit, which cannot dwell in unholy temples. It is a lose lose until humility is achieved.
I agree with you about humility. I also agree with you about the need for a desire to believe before any faith will be gained. If their desire is to destroy, little ground can be gained.
I find that the real strength of the Book of Mormon comes from its content--the gospel of Jesus Christ--and from the Three Witnesses. I have always gained new respect when discussing the truth from these angles.
God bless you, Jacob.
"No one comes to the Father unless the Father draws him." John 6:44
The true and living God offers forgiveness of sins, salvation and eternal life for free. That is how much God loves everyone!
Only a proud and arrogant man would ever think that they could become a god one day. Only a proud and arrogant man would think that they could ever measure up to God's standard of perfection. Matthew 5:48
"Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of God."
@@estherlewis7458 So when Jesus commanded the multidude in Matthew to be perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect, he was teaching them to be prideful? You have to realize this one fact and it will remove any stereotype you have about LDS. We equate becoming gods as you equate becoming godly. They are absolutely the same thing. It is a scriptural concept to be gods. John 10:34 and Psalms 82. Now the context of that doesn't suggest to put yourself over Him who created you but to learn from Him forever. This is what Jesus did and he commanded all to follow him in that same pattern. The greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven or the most perfect and godly in heaven is the one who humbles himself below all. That is what LDS teach and that is what Christ teaches.
@@jacobsamuelson3181 First of all, I don't worship your Heavenly Father because he is only an exalted man from another planet. He is not the Creator.
Psalm 82 was written to the unjust Jewish judges of the day, who were seen as 'gods' by the people. They would die one day and be judged by God himself. They were only men after all.
Are you saying that Latter-day Saints are unjust Jewish judges? I think you would agree that Latter-day Saints are not 'gods.'
Jesus Christ claimed to be God. John 10:30-33. It was punishable by death so the Jews took up stones to stone him. Jesus Christ then states that if mere men can be considered 'gods,' then he can rightly claim to be the Son of God, since he was sent by God.
The words 'Son of God' mean that Jesus is God. The Jews knew this. It was the reason Christ was crucified.
@@jacobsamuelson3181 Becoming godly and becoming a god are two different things.
Jesus Christ commands us to be perfect. Becoming like God doesn't mean you turn into a god. You will always be a created being.
In fact, God has already sentenced you to death for all your sins. 10/10 people will die. You will be one of them. Your death will show to the world that God is serious about sin. Romans 6:23 The wages of sin is death. You have earned the death penalty.
Even created beings who have never sinned, angels in Isaiah 6, cover their faces and feet in the presence of an infinitely holy and righteous God.
I have been made perfect. Christ took all of my sins upon himself when he shed his blood on the cross, died and rose again. By repentance and faith alone, Christ has given to me his righteousness, which is the righteousness of God.
2 Corinthians 5:21 God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering Christ hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.
Phenomenal video! I thank you so much for this valuable contribution that gets rid of concerns regarding seeming anachronisms, perfectly explained here!
I thought that one of the main ideas in our faith is that the fully Christian practices in Old Testament times were either not recorded or removed out of the text, but that they were very real. The biblical patriarchs and even the Israelites under Moses practiced baptism and prophecied regularly about Christ.
Atheists and others have similar complaints about the relationship between Judaism and Christianity, because it's important to them that they be two different things and their worldview depends on it. But a lot of that was disproven with the Dead Sea scrolls.
Archeology and scholarship about ancient cultures are unreliable at best.
There is not just one Bible. There are several. I have compared them from time to time , chapter and verse. The modern versions of the Bible use modern every day language instead of the older language used in the King James version. Modern version of Luke 13:24: “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.” Can I conclude from this that the Bible is not an ancient book?
Something similar to this has taken place when Joseph Smith Translated/interpreted the Book of Mormon.
I like what Ostler said about revelation coming in the language of the one receiving it.
I don't see these anachronisms. The doctrine of Christ has been the same since the time of Adam. For example, we are told in the Pearl of Great Price that Adam was baptized. Baptism has been required and practiced since Adam. This is one of the doctrines purposely 'lost' in the Old Testament, 1 Ne 13:23-26. The brass plates contained, at least, a more complete and accurate record of the revelations and the doctrine of Christ as given to men before the time of Christ's personal ministry. Did other B.C. prophets know the Savior's name? Very likely and also very likely to have been 'lost'. If Joseph of Egypt was told of Moses' name hundreds of years before his birth, and Isaiah was told of Cyrus' name, why couldn't B.C. prophets have been told what the Savior's name would be? After all, Joshua (His Hebrew name), means 'God is deliverance'. Is that because LONG before the Saviors birth the prophets were told His name and mission and that is why the name means what it does?
Here are a list of some anachronisms of the book of Mormon from the view that is a historical text. Steel swords, horses, chariots, not found in the Americas from that time period. You can argue that Joseph used horses because he knew those but there many other unknown animals listed that have no reference.
Deutero-Isaiah. Many of the Isaiah chapters in the book of Mormon,which it claims to come from the brass plates, were written well after Lehi would have left Jerusalem and couldn't have been on the brass plates.
All of the NT language that is found in the first books of the BofM was not the way the Hebrews would have spoken so it is out of place.
Not to mention the lack of DNA and anthropological evidence for the majority of the items, concepts and people of the Americas. Absolutely no evidence for the amount of people the BofM claims or the wars it describes. Most top apologetic scholars are starting to concede that it is a 19th century text even the church is backing off the history claims.
To look objectively one must put out any preconceived beliefs and look with fresh eyes. If one wants to know truth then all possibilities must be an option not just the ones we want to be true. You can't work from the view that it is absolute truth and make everything fit to that belief because that requires faith despite the evidence against it.
B. H. Roberts in the early 1900s recognized the issues with the historical inaccuracies but was ignored.
I like Jeff and following his experiences but I kinda get the vibe he’s saying, “I read the Book of Mormon so you don’t have to…” which is kinda the opposite of what we preach. What do you think?
He reads it with Evangelical critical thinking that isn't fooled by the false narrative of the Book of Mormon !
@@davidjanbaz7728 There’s nothing false about the Book of Mormon.
Agreed!! I don't like his voice, he sounds like he's an authority on spiritual matters. The Holy Ghost is the only one who has the authority and convincing Power to establish the truth.
@@jordanwutkee2548 that's only your opinion: no evidence of that and Joseph Smith's life is a total Apostasy of historical Christianity .
Many evangelicals won't pick up the Book of Mormon. And, their own pastors make their congregations come to 'how to tract to Mormon' workshops for their knowledge of what we believe.
Lol that's pretty much what I do when I feel lazy: Just go read Blake Ostler.
I can’t tell if this is ironic or not. Blake Ostler is the last place I go to read when feeling lazy. His writing is the most insanely difficult analytical philosophical theology I think the Church has ever and will ever produce. Every paragraph gives me a new brain aneurysm, and I feel like I have to take a nap every time I put his books down.
@@eS-ql7vm i love this comment! lol
When you seek answers from the Book of Mormon instead of the Bible, God can't help you because you have turned your back on Him. Therefore this leaves the door open for Satan (II Corinthians 11:14-15) to step into your life with a false christ or prophet showing you "signs and wonders" to lead you away from the real Jesus of the Bible who is God the Son 2nd person of the Trinity. God Himself warns us about this in MATTHEW 24:23-24 "Then if anyone says to you, Look, here is the Christ! or There! do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect..."
Mormons teach and believe that their jesus is the brother of Satan, which contradicts what God says in His Bible that Jesus is God the Son 2nd person of the Trinity.
So Mormons, which Jesus do you believe in?
A. Your jesus of the Book of Mormon, who is the brother of Satan.
OR
B. The Jesus of the Bible, who is God the Son 2nd person of the Trinity.
To be quite plain, thank you for your endeavors in serving the lord and his children.
I particularly liked the legal references. Jeff trends to insist that through Christ the need for covenants was done away. Clearly not only must Christians engage in covenants in order to enjoy what Christ offers us (here's where the Trinity falls apart because the agreement is with Heavenly Father, not Christ), but the blessings of Abraham are only available to partake through covenant.
This video blew my mind.
Faithful Latter-day Saints point to the BofM's ancient text constructions (chiasmus, Hebrew poetic parallelism, covenant renewal ceremonies, etc.), while detractors point to anachronisms. It's wonderful to see someone address and reconcile both.
I never understood the significance of chiasmus. Most of my favorite rock artists have plenty of chiasmus in their songs.
Love it! Great way to start my morning.
The moral of the story is: When we start with the conclusion, then tie in elevated emotions, we can always find the evidence we need to make virtually anything true in our own mind.
Well put. This is also how we fight the truth.
@@brucenorth5337Agreed. The truth is that Jesus Christ never said you needed to believe the Book of Mormon was true to get to the 'top level' of heaven. Tens of millions of Americans have never heard of the Book of Mormon not to mention the billions of people around the world.
Of course, the later teachings of Joseph Smith contradicted the Book of Mormon as does the Doctrine and Covenants and the Bible. Such a sad story. 😞
God bless you.
@@estherlewis7458 you clearly know 10x more about church history than any of us. We thus bow down to your omniscience.
@@estherlewis7458 I am curious as to why members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints appear to be in so much need of correction, when there are billions of people out there that don’t even believe in God at all? I can appreciate and even welcome Pastor Jeff’s approach of respectful bilateral dialog; but the condemnation, negativity, lack of love and obvious ignorance of those that you are trying to convince of their errors, is frankly not Christ-like at all.
@@JeffreySmith-if6ey If there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing, there would still be nothing. God is the first, uncaused cause of everything you see. No one created God or Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. God does not have a mom and dad.
As a Christian, I worship the true and living God the Father, who is invisible and a spirit. He is eternal. He has always been God. He never had to work his way to godhood. He is transcendent. He lives outside of the universe because he spoke the universe into existence including the planet that the LDS Heavenly Father came from and the star Kolob that he lives near. Unlike pagan gods, the true and living God is not married. He created Adam out of the dust of the ground- no wife needed!
The true and living God is self-existent. He does not need food, air, water, sex, sleep, shelter, clothing or anything else a mere created being might need.
Latter-day Saints do not believe in, know or worship this God. Instead, they worship an 'exalted man' from another planet, that had to work his way to godhood, practices polygamy, lives near a star named Kolob, had sex with his own spirit daughter Mary to conceive 'Christ,' damns people who deny the eternal principle of polygamy (D&C 132), threatened to destroy Emma if she didn't abide by Joseph's adultery (D&C 132:54, 65), is going to have women sharing their husbands with other women for all eternity and the 'other women' will be separated from their families so they can serve as part of some LDS man's harem should he get to the 'top level' of heaven.
By worshiping a false God, Latter-day Saints are idolaters. They are breaking the first and second commandments and have no hope of getting into heaven. God said that idolaters will be cast into the lake which burneth with fire.
Revelation 21:8
Is that loving for God to send idolaters to outer darkness? Would you say that is ignorant and hateful?
The true and living God offers forgiveness of sins, salvation and eternal life for free, if you are interested. That is how much God loves you! ❤️
I John 1:9 If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Romans 6:23 the wages of sin is death but the gift 🎁 of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.
A lot of this is based on man's interpretation / understanding..
The truth is revealed by the Holy Spirit. People are decived by the devil through man.
Your faith is based on a MAN be not decieved.. theses no way around it.. christ or Joseph Smith. Joseph was a lier and deciever. Why compromise your eternal salvation?
3:00 It is silly we call this an anachronism. Because we don’t know how much the Jews in Jerusalem lost of the gospel before it was taken from among them after Lehi left. Baptism comes from the idea of Mikveh, which is Jewish in nature and has been for some time a practice in Judaism. Likely the Jews changed it along with the rest of their apostate ideas. So Nephi was MORE connected to the truth than his Jewish counterparts of his day.
Could be. I think he's mostly just saying that according to the most accepted scholarly understanding of the Bible of Israelites this would be anachronistic.
The true Gospel is simple, so simple that even a child can understand it. It's not meant to be complicated and you are not meant to have to do complex 'mental gymnastics' to arrive at THE truth. All of this 'explaining away' the 'anachronisms' in the BoM, gives me a headache and makes my head spin. The Bible tells us everything that we need to know in order to be saved and spend eternity with God. It's not about making covenants...we are already in the New Covenant...it's not about attending temples and performing ordinances...WE (our bodies) ARE the Temple of the Holy Spirit who lives in us. Revelation 21:22 tells us there is NO temple in heaven because 'the Lord Almighty and the Lamb are its temple'. I am a Mormon convert (from 2010) and have spent the last 13 years diving deep into the BoM and LDS doctrine and there are many reasons why I have rejected the Church but there really is only one that any Christian needs in order to reach the same conclusion...that it is a false church...and that is found in Isa. 43:10..'Ye are My witnesses saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He: before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me". See also Isa 45:5.
LDS doctrine teaches that God was once a man like us and progressed to 'Godhood'. It teaches that we have 'heavenly parents' and that God Himself had 'parents' and so on and so forth, meaning that the God of this earth is NOT the one and only original, non-created, eternal, first-cause of EVERYTHING. It goes on to teach that we humans can progress to 'godhood' too. The two texts above (and there are more like them) completely contradict this teaching. Please let the Bible be your Yardstick for measuring truth, after all, if the BoM is 'another testament' and a second witness, then the Bible is the FIRST. If the BoM or LDS teachings, or Joseph Smith's words and character, don't line up with what the Bible says, then walk away from that church, regardless of how it makes you 'feel'.
I converted to Mormonism 30 years ago and during the pandemic. I am now leaving . Due to the things that you mentioned
That sound profound but in reality no child or honest adult can do the mental gymnastics necessary to put Mormonism together.
Read Stephen Robinson's critique of Ostler's expansion theory and the problems with it. It's hardly what I would offer to Jeff to help him understand the Book of Mormon.
I just read it. It was fascinating and well stated
Read Blake's response: blakeostler.com/docs/criticexpansionth.pdf
Probably because of the interviews with the Lord and angels that both Lehi and Nephi had... Nephi tells us they are living a higher law and understanding than that which their contemporaries in Jerusalem were. They kept the Law of Moses... but the Law was dead to them. Their relationship with Christ was much more developed--much more "New Testament-ish."
Reformed Egyptian--translated by the gift and power of God--for a 19th century and beyond audience = God giving Joseph a "translation" that uses language that makes sense now and is familiar now... including some passages and language that are/is exactly the same or very similar to passages/language in the Bible. That seems to be simple Divine Wisdom. Why make it more complicated when you can make the reader instantly comfortable with "familiar" language?
Baptism was prevalent in the Old Testament times. It was practiced in the temple and the baptismal font is described in 1 Kings 7.
John the baptist was the last prophet of the old law and baptized believers before baptizing the messiah Jesus Christ. Therefore, if John the baptizer was of the Old Testament and baptized with water for the remission of sins, surely the other prophets did likewise.
So it makes sense that baptism was prevalent in the Book of Mormon. Jesus disciples continued to baptize in the presence of Jesus Christ (although Jesus did not baptize) but the law continues, no jot or tittle of the law shall change until heaven and earth pass, heaven and earth have not yet passed away. Therefore we continue to practice this saving ordinance that has been since the beginning.
If the book is ancient why is there ZERO pre 1829 manuscript support.
I had always assumed these Christian elements always existed and that such references had been removed from the Old Testament long ago, or that these Christian elements were revealed to Lehi's family because of their circumstances, or some combination of the two. Clearly Joseph does have some influence in the language used which can also explain it. For example he uses the French word adieu at one point. Interestingly, there are some examples of old English words being used in the Book of Mormon which date to centuries before Joseph's time which tells me he wasn't completely limited by his own vocabulary.
The French language did not exist in 600 B.C. It did not exist until at least 600 A.D.
@@jlewis8145 Right which goes to my point, and a point of this video, Joseph was using modern language to convey meaning in the translation.
@@deerjerkydave Joseph Smith was supposedly translating 'reformed Egyptian.' It is not an accurate translation, if he is just throwing in modern language. No scholar would ever consider a translation of anything valid, if the person translating was sticking his head in a hat and looking at a seer stone.
Where did Christ require anyone to believe the Book of Mormon was true to get to the 'top level' of heaven?
How does Blake feel about the use of the seer stone to translate the BoM? Apparently some records tell that actual words in light appeared on the stone and were replaced by new words when the former were dictated by Joseph, and both transcribed and repeated by Oliver.
edit: typo
That's a good question. So the implication you're suggesting is that if words appeared on the stone then those words would be directly from God and there would be no bias or influence from Joseph Smith over the words? This could be the case but I'll point out that perhaps even these words appearing were influenced by Joseph Smith's bias and influence, understanding, etc. I know that's sort of weird but perhaps our subjective perception imposes itself on any perception of God that we perceive of Him when receiving revelation.
I actually disagree with Ostler somewhat because of this detail. There are a few alternative explanations for the New Testament language and heavy-handed Christian culture early in the Book of Mormon I can come up with:
1) Mormon may have editorialized the small plates and throughout his abridgement, re-contextualizing the writings of Nephi and others to better fit with his late Nephite religious understanding, which was much closer to the Christian mold we are familiar with due to Christ's ministry.
2) The lost 116 pages (which was probably more than a third of the entire text, more like ~300 pages) of the Book of Mormon, had a writing style and character, according to those that knew them, of being "very Hebrew". It was thought, at the beginning, that the most prominent role of the Book was towards the scattered house of Israel and the Jews. It wasn't seen as being very Christian at all. If we take that impression as being accurate, then it would indicate that the first part of the Book of Mormon did not have very much anachronistic character during that portion of Nephite history. This would imply a more gradual introduction of plainly Christian concepts than what we experience with the current work.
3) It should be pointed out, that when we get input from Lehi, in First and Second Nephi, the language and emphases are different. Lehi's voice comes over as far more Old-Testament, from his Theophany in the wilderness, to his dream of the Tree of life and his patriarchal blessings of his sons on his deathbed. Lehi fills the mold of an old testament patriarch. Nephi, on the other hand, seems to be far more revolutionary. Laman and Lemuel whine about following their father, but take it upon themselves to physically abuse Nephi, often after Nephi goes on one of his sermons. Nephi's perspective seems to be radically different from his family's, he talks about Christ and the Godhead, the atonement and is obsessed with convincing the rest of his family about these things. They may have thought Lehi was "visionary" but they probably saw Nephi as insane and dangerous. Moreover, Nephi seems to realize this during his commentary on Isaiah, when he says he "delights in plainness". He supposes that because the identity of the Saviour, the end of the Mosaic law and the structure of the Godhead was clear to him, as well as detecting all of this in Isaiah, that it ought to be clear to everybody. Hence he speaks in "plainness" instead of the esotericism that was typical of the Old-Testament prophets. This trend was then continued through Jacob and the other Book of Mormon prophets and teachers.
@@TheYgds cool thanks for sharing that's a pretty thoughtful comment
That is a good observation. What it really points to is the fact that Joseph didn't translate using the seer stone in a hat, like modern church history revisionists have said. The sources for the seer stone in a hat theory are questionable at best. They are not from Joseph or Oliver, the only ones who really knew how it was done. They both, many times told that it was done by the gift and power of God using the Urim and Thummim. Joseph never explained completely how he did it, but the experience of Oliver's failed attempt to translate is very enlightening. The Lord told him the reason he couldn't translate was because he failed to study it out in his mind and then ask if it was correct. The book, Seer Stone V. Urim and Thummim: Book of Mormon Translation on Trial is a very good source on this subject. This false history of the translation as well as the false history of Joseph's money digging and using magic and many other claims that tarnish his and his family's character are the source of many doubts and faith crises within the membership of the Church and keeps many investigators from receiving testimonies. It is frustrating and sad that these false theories that have their origins from early apostates and anti-Mormon persecutors have been accepted and promoted by LDS Scholars and historians.
@@TheYgds really good comment. Thank you. Very thought provoking.
“The claims of the Church are now and always have been historical. The doctrines have power only because they testify of what really happened. As Jacob put it: “For the Spirit speaketh the truth and lieth not. Wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be” (Jacob 4:13). Also, in the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord says, “And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come; And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning” (93:24-25).
When the link between doctrine and the real world is severed, religion becomes a sugar-coated lie. Adopting the concept of “salvation history” might indeed make it easier for those who cannot sustain a belief in certain historical claims to remain in the fold, but it does so by telling them that what they found so hard to believe was not really true after all.
Thus, before we even begin to analyze the arguments for the expansion theory, we see that at least three a priori assumptions are at work:
1. There is no predictive prophecy (for if there is, the expansion theory is unnecessary).
2. The Book of Mormon is not a reliable witness to Nephite history and culture unless supported by other pre-exilic sources.
3. At least some of the historical claims of the Book of Mormon are false.
let me say that the expansion theory asks us, without discussion, proof or justification, to accept as givens three a priori assumptions which are inimical to the teachings of the Church and which are, I believe, merely camouflaged capitulation to the arguments of the Church’s opponents. Second, the theory is inconsistent in its treatment of parallels. It first states very properly that the mere existence of parallels proves nothing in terms of relationship and dependence (Ostler 67), then it turns around and without demonstration invokes just such parallels as evidence for dependence and hence for expansion. Finally, the theory is inconsistent in its use of the critical empirical method, rejecting this or that claim of the Book of Mormon because it involves divine agency, and then proposing alternative views which themselves rely upon divine agency. There is nothing to be gained by trading the traditional understanding of the Book of Mormon for the expansion theory.”
Thank you for posting this. I don't know why this channel pushes Blake Ostler so much.
Isn’t this Robinson’s response to the Theory? Make sure to cite your sources.
I don't think you read Blake's response: blakeostler.com/docs/criticexpansionth.pdf
This is a complete misrepresentation of Blake's theory.
The hypocrisy of saying that skeptics of the Book of Mormon only look for things that agree with their “worldview,” while you scrape the bottom of barrels for the few people that try to justify ridiculous truth claims of the church is astounding!
How is it that this Bible-believing pastor can have the Book of Mormon for over a year and not see the divinity in it, cannot feel the Holy Ghost witness of it's truthfulness, and cannot see the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ in it? Could it be that Pastor Jeff's original purpose in "learning all he can about the Mormons" was to build up a very large church of Mormon apostates that he helped create? I was stunned when I watched him explain why he rejects Eternal Marriage. How could he not want to be with his beautiful wife forever? Makes me think of a comment by Joseph Smith: "There will be very many disappointed people in the resurrection."
He probably realized that he could never imagine letting Joseph's Myth babysit his teenage daughters 😮😮
Of course he completely ignores David Witmers testimony about the translation of the BOM!
After watching this I am a bit unclear on what you mean. for a concrete example that might help clarify, Is it your opinion that Nephites performed Christian baptisms or was that a modern addition?
I think the answer would be yes under this way of thinking. They wouldn’t have called it “Christian baptism”. Moreover they would have certainly had all sorts of different concepts manifest in language and perhaps ritual surrounding the event. If we were transported in time and given a Google translator, we would likely not get the same translation as what is in the Book of Mormon. But under this theory, Devine revelation does many things including going to the heart of the truth behind the concepts and giving the information to the subject in a way they can understand and even communicate to others in their respective time and place.
Michael Perry: I am not sure where you are coming from and what your knowledge base is. From God's point of view, the gospel of Jesus Christ has always been the same process for salvation beginning with Adam. There are five steps:
1. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ who was a member of the Godhead in his pre-earth life, was the God who called the prophets of the Old Testament and revealed his will to them, was still a member of the Godhead during his earthly mission when he was "the only begotten of the Father in the flesh." After his ascension, he remains a member of the Godhead who "sits at the right hand of the Father. It is He who decided in 1820 that it was time to fulfill the prophecy of Acts 3: 19-21. The first thing he did was call a prophet. Why? The answer is found in Amos 3:7. During the course of the restitution of all things, Christ brought forth the Book of Mormon (which, along with the Bible contains the fulness of the gospel, (and fulfills the prophecy found in Ezekiel 37:17) which he had caused to be compiled circa 400 AD. He then sent John the Baptist in 1829 to restore the Aaronic Priesthood which has the authority to baptize. Shortly thereafter he sent Peter, James and John to restore the Melchizedek Priesthood which has the authority to confer the Gift of the Holy Ghost without which there can be no justification and sanctification. We know from the revelations that Adam was baptized by an angel. The fulness of the Gospel was known and practiced by all the prophets of the Old Testament. It was only after the children of Israel built a golden calf that the Lord gave Moses a "lesser law" designed as a "schoolmaster to bring us to Christ" as Paul put it. One of the first things Jesus did during his mortal ministry was to fulfill the Law of Moses and restore the fulness of the gospel.
2.Repentance-changing your mind, your heart, and your behavior from sin to righteousness. Doing what Jesus taught you must do to enter the kingdom of heaven; namely, keep the commandments and do the will of the Father.
3. Be baptized by someone having the authority to perform a baptism. Baptism is a covenant between you and God that you will take upon yourself the name of Christ, keep his commandments, and always remember him. In return Christ promises that "his spirit will always be with you." Several other things happen with baptism. You become a member of the Christ's church, which is the kingdom of God on the earth. If not already a member of the House of Israel by lineage, you are adopted into the House of Israel. If faithful you become an adopted son or daughter of Christ who is the Father of Eternal Life. It is also at this point that the newly baptized person takes Christ's yoke upon him/her and becomes a partner with Christ in working out one's salvation.
4. You are given the Gift of the Holy Ghost by someone holding the Melchizedek Priesthood and thereby have access to the Holy Ghost, the comforter, who then gives you access to justification and sanctification which transforms the individual from a natural, worldly person to a holy, Godly person who can be in the presence of God. As Paul put it, "For we know that when He shall appear, we shall be like Him for we shall see him as he is."
5. Endure to the end. It isn't a one and done process. It is a lifetime process with our ultimate objective of developing a Christ-like character. Jesus put it in a rhetorical question, "What manner of men ought ye to be; behold even as I am. Nephi described the process, "The strait gate we must pass through to enter the narrow path is repentance and baptism of water and of the spirit." We must then press forward on the narrow path led by the Holy Spirit and assisted by Christ's grace (the gift of Christ's enabling power) until we are sanctified.
@@bobrussell8339 I understand that LDS view, this video though expressed a view that maybe this Christian-like baptism in the BOM wasn’t literally what was going on. It was sort of superimposed onto the text in retrospect. After watching it I was unclear if that is what this video was suggesting. I know the common LDS view is one of the fullness of the Christian gospel being taught to Adam, followed by apostasy, restoration, apostasy restoration over and over again. That view doesn’t seem to match what the Bible shows, the Bible shows a progressive understanding of God. Adam knew a little, Abraham learned more, Moses more and then finally the fullness of God’s character and love and grace are revealed perfectly in Jesus. Yes apostasy happens a lot all through the Bible but you have each righteous age learning more and more about God until Jesus when the fullness is revealed.
The “restoration” of all things in acts Chapter 3 doesn’t seem at all to be talking about an apostasy that will happen in the community of Jesus believers followed by a church restoration by Joseph Smith being called. If it was, Peter would be telling them they can follow Jesus for a short season before they will all fall away but then eventually a church will be restored of true believers. That isn’t what he says. He is taking about the restoration of “all things” not of some church doctrine and authorities. if you read the Old Testament many of the prophecies talk about the world being restored to the glory it had before sin entered. That is what the prophets talk about so just reading the words in these passages leads me to conclude that is what acts 3 had in mind. The world at Christ’s second coming will be transformed, death will be conquered, sin will be overcome and all will live with love with God. These verses in acts 3 give no indication they are about another Christian denomination springing up to correct some things that were being missed by the other denominations.
@@mkprr The doctrine in the early church was clearly eroding during Paul's ministry as evidenced by Paul's letters. There was also a protocol for the replacement of apostles and prophets which the New Testament tells us were the "foundation of the Church, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone." These apostles held the keys of the kingdom. When the last died, the church itself died. Thereafter what you had were Bishops and Priests who had been ordained, but could nolonger use their priesthood authority because the keys were gone. The message of the "restitution of all things spoken of by all the holy prophets since the world began" had its beginning in 1820 when God the Father and Jesus Christ called a prophet. Amos 3:7 Christ then restored the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods by sending John the Baptist and then Peter, James, and John. Christ also sent an "another angel having the everlasting gospel to preach to them that dwell on the earth." Rev 14: 7 He later sent Moses in 1836 to restore the keys of the "gathering of the 12 tribes of Israel" as prophesied in the Bible. He also sent Elijah to restore the sealing keys as prophesied in Mal 4:5. "so the whole earth wouldn't be wasted at his second coming." In the process of Christ restoring the fulness of the gospel, his church, and his priesthood and keys of the priesthood (delegated authority to perform the saving ordinances and administer the affairs of the church, He provided another witness to these events so that "in the mouths of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." 2 Cor 13:1 The Bible also tells us that you can know a true prophet "by his fruits." What are the fruits of a prophet? He receives revelation from God, teaches it to the people, and records it for scripture for future generations. Joseph Smith received 883 pages of new revelation that are available for anyone who desires to know what God has revealed in the latter days in preparation for his return.
Just as the missionaries of the New Testament testified of Christ's ministry. I also testify that Jesus Christ, the Son of God the Father, has been back at least nine documented times to bring about the "restitution of all things." It is now in your hands to study it, ask God if it is true, and embrace it when he tells you it is. I hope for, but don't expect any more success than Christ, his apostles, and the other early missionaries had. I think one of the saddest events recorded in the New Testament was after Jesus preached to the 5000 men plus women and children that most went away and didn't return. Jesus said to his apostles, "Will you also go away?"
This is the problem with Apologetics. They come up with a theory that doesn't match witness accounts, ignoring the most rational conclusion that the book is fictional and the eye witness accounts are fabricated
Yeah, right.
Except you have to put the witness accounts into their proper context. None of them ever saw what Joseph saw in his hat, and no, it isn't a rational conclusion that the Book is fictional and the eye witness accounts are fabricated. The evidence that Blake presented is obtained via well used and understood form-critical analysis that is used on all sorts of ancient documents by scholars, which definitely removes it out of the realm of something that Joseph could have come up with on his own, considering that most of these form-critical methods didn't discover the things they did until the late 20th century.
@ultroniumgalactus7343 I wish I could believe that, but unfortunately, Blake's analysis is not correct and presents many problems that make this claim false. Joseph is a lot more intelligent than people give him credit for, and the false narrative presented of him being an unintelligent farm boy is created to make it appear miraculous. Hey, I get it, I used to believe it all as well, and any problems with the narrative I just put on the shelf.
Well, my shelf never broke, but instead, I spent 10 years solving all the problems on my shelf, and as I have been solving all the problems, it paints a whole new picture that I would have never believed and it is a picture that most members would reject because it's not what they were raised to believe. The truth is more scandalous and exciting than you can possibly imagine.
Emma Smith gives an account that Joseph can't even put two sentences together, but yet in 1829, he personally writes a letter to Oliver Cowdery from his own hand that tells us otherwise. So what would you believe, would you believe the account of Emma, or would you believe the evidence of the handwritten letter?
Here is what you are going to discover as you sincerely do your research, that everyone is lying for what they believe is for the greater good. This is called Poius Fraud.
You will be taught that Joseph had a third grade education, but you will not be taught about Joseph going to high school with Josiah Stowell Jr, or that McMillan was his high school science teacher, or that he was on a debate club according to others that claimed to go to school with Joseph.
Lucy Mack Smith will say that Joseph was deprived a formal education because they didn't have the money, but no one is going to tell you that in 1814 a new act was put in place called "The Act for the Better Establishment of Common Schools" allowing poor children to receive free education and paid the teachers. Scholarship work done by William Davis showed that Joseph Smith may have actually attend 10.5 years of formal schooling along with private tutoring and he provides all the sources for his claims.
After studying this and reading through his sources I am absolutely convinced that Joseph is a prodigy child that has an understanding that goes beyond our comprehensive understanding. Joseph recognizes his gift as the gift and power of God and truly believes that he is called to bring forth a great work that will make a lot of money for him and his family. He starts out his journal "Having been born of goodly parents" wich is a phrase we should all recognize. Joseph sees himself as Nephi and helps us understand that when Nephi killed Laban and deceived Zoram it was for a righteous purpose and for the better good. Meaning that it is OK to be deceptive if it is for the better good.
People flocked to Mormonism because of the miraculous story of the Angel Moroni and the Gold Plates, then they joined Mormonism after reading the BOM and feeling a conviction in their heart that it was true. The same model used today.
Joseph sees translation as bringing a lack of understanding to a full understanding of the way he understands things. So what you don't understand he is going to explain it to you the way he understands it and he may use stories in order to help you understand.
In order for Joseph to stand out above all the others fighting for membership to their church, Joseph has to create a miraculous experience that people can believe and he has that charismatic authority to do just that.
Is Joseph a prophet? Yes, because we are all prophets, seers, and revelators.
Is the Book of Mormon true? Yes, it serves its purpose to bring people to Christ.
Is the Book historical? No, however it contains some history within its pages, but for the most part contains fictional characters in a fictional book that is inspired by historical understanding at the time.
Elder Bednar "The Book of Mormon is not a book of history."
Trying to find evidence for the BOM is "fruitless" as the church has stated in 1970 and continues in its position today. Hence is the reason they stopped all archaeological digs and stopped spending millions of dollars to locate where the events took place.
@@stevenhenderson9005
I never claimed that all the Book of Mormon is historical. My claim is that the Book of Mormon is influenced by ancient and modern ideas and expression.
For Joseph not being able to dictate a letter as Emma claims, I never made that claim, and I don't think Emma was right as you rightly point out.
The idea that Joseph used the Book of Mormon as a means to get influence and stand out over his contemporaries is questionable at best, and patently false at worst. I have spent quite a long time reading contemporary sources in the day of Joseph Smith and I don't think your analysis is accurate. In fact, your comment seems to follow Dan Vogel's perspective almost to a T.
I never even denied that Joseph was intelligent! I am simply suggesting that attributing all the Book of Mormon's text and ideas to JS is problematic. Please explain why Ostler's evidence isn't persuasive. If you want to have a conversation with me, maybe we could change each other's minds.
In John 8:56, Jesus says Abraham saw his day and rejoiced. So, what did he see? The same thing Nephi saw. The Old Testament is a record of Israel’s apostasy. Nephi and Lehi were not apostates. So, it is perfectly reasonable that Nephi and his dependents had a correct view of Jesus and his mission. It is not reasonable to hold Jeff’s view: that God never revealed the truth to his children until Jesus was 30 years old. That would be a partial God, for sure.
Lehi and Nephi both had interviews with the Lord and angels... and they had the Brass Plates. When the angel told Nephi that many pain and precious things would be taken from the Bible records... chances are he was shown those records... and having the Brass Plates he could plainly see what had been lost or removed--at least up to 600 BC. The Bible's 5 Books of Moses gives us a "Coles Notes" version of things. For the Nephites to not "not dwindle in unbelief" as their contemporaries in Jerusalem had... it is not unreasonable to think that the Brass Plates had a lot more doctrine, history, understanding, and relationship with Christ elements in it... that the ancient Patriarchs had and lived.
@@mrsjonse you can't prove any of that: nothing was removed from the Bible : because it was never put into the Hebrew Bible.
This was great thank you, although in Jeff's defense he often does say that it may have been the best word or words Joseph Smith could use or come up with to describe the images or thoughts coming to his mind as he translated that he knew and also that the modern day audience would understand. I really appreciate that he recognized and mentioned that in his vids. Something I always wonder though and feel has greater importance is how does he feel about the spiritual implications that are throughout the Book of Mormon. It often feels he skips this which is the greatest value of the Book of Mormon. I'd be interested to know his thoughts and feelings on these considering his deep devotion to Jesus Christ and things of spiritual matters. As he says - this is where the focus should be.
I would like to add that I loved his thoughts he shared on the allegory of the Olive Trees from Jacob 5. There are moments like this when he does cover the spiritual and Christ centered aspects of the Book of Mormon - it's just kind of rare. So I hope he'll share more of his thoughts on these things.
So what exactly was the point of the gold plates if JS wasn't translating the words from off the plates but instead was receiving revelation without the need of the plates to write the BoM?
Jack Burton: The plates served as a witness and evidence that there really was a recorded history. However, this is a good question that you should take up with Jesus and Moroni during the millennium when "all things will be made known." Among numerous other questions I have, I will be asking the same thing.
Blake, I think you are completely off target. The overwhelming evidence is that the translation was a revelatory experience. Joseph didn't know anything about reformed Egyptian. He hardly knew anything about English. His wife said he could hardly compose a sentence. We have numerous non revelatory writings of Joseph Smith that testify that what Emma said was true. What would have been the point of the Urim and Thummim (U & T) if Joseph had the ability to translate on his own? We have historical accounts at various times, when the translating was going on, that the plates were hidden outside the house to keep them safe from the mobs trying to get their hands on them. We have Emma stating that even when the plates were in the house they sat on the table wrapped in a cloth while they were translating. There are no accounts whatsoever of Joseph looking at the plates while he was translating. We have witnesses tell us that the Egyptian figures would appear in the U & T with the English translation written below which Joseph would read and Oliver would record and then read back. Not until the translation was confirmed accurate did new Egyptian and English translation appear in the U & T. The fact that Joseph never asked Oliver where they left off is evidence that the translation process occurred as described. Joseph didn't need to know where they left off, he simply read what appeared in the U % T. Joseph never took any credit for the translation. He said, "It was translated by the gift and power of God." The idea that Joseph translated the B of M by reading the seer stone in a hat has been completed discredited. That story came from David Whitmer decades after he left the church. We know that a few of the D & C revelations were received in the seer stone, but not the B of M. Those involved in the translation like Joseph, Oliver, Emma all said it was done with the U & T. As a side line, wasn't that exactly how Mosiah translated the 24 gold plates of the Jardites none of whom he'd ever met and the last of whom had died some 500+ years before Mosiah was born? Furthermore, we have the Lord in a revelation in the D & C saying, "I have given Joseph the gift of translating." We also have Joseph saying, with regard to the revelations in the D & C and Pearl of Great Price, "I have never claimed to be anything but a man. I've made mistakes, but THERE ARE NO ERRORS IN THE REVELATIONS." I think it was Sidney Rigdon who stated after he and Joseph had spent a couple of hours "in the spirit" personally viewing and experiencing the three degrees of glory which are summarized in the 76th section of the D & C "While Joseph was still in the spirit, he dictated what we now have as the 76th section," which was only a small part of what the two had seen and experienced." Based on all of these historical facts the only conclusion we can come to is that EVERY WORD in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price was chosen by the Holy Ghost, not Joseph Smith. He could not possibly have made the statement, "There are no errors in the revelations" had he been choosing the words. If the Holy Ghost wanted to use words and phrases from the New Testament, so be it. All scripture comes from God.
I though that given enough time there would be no anachronism in the BOM? I guess Mormonism needs a theory for everything just in case.
The way i see it...the church is always just out of reach of what they are seeking. Interesting observation
So the expansionist theory is “ we are going to call it a translation but it’s not a translation.
Doesnt Solomons temple have a baptistry? The 3 oxen facing north, south, east and west for the 12 tribes of israel? The Brazen Sea or Molten Sea? Is it anachronistic really? Nephi built a replica of Solomons temple, which would have had a brazen sea as well. (if it was in mesoamerica they would have had the ore to make it and Nephi already had metallurgy experience) Was John the Baptist doing something brand new? or performing an established ordinance? My point is, we call it baptism, but there is evidence that it predates NT times and is not necessarily anachronistic. What word did they use in old testament instead of the word "baptism"? "washings" may be one.
Hi. Reformed Anglican, here. It seems like you Mormons could use Occam's Razor! Which is the simpler explanation: (1) Some guy 1800 years after Jesus' death met an angel (never mentioned in the Bible) who told him to go dig up some new holy book (that for some reason reads more like a poorly-written historical fantasy novel...???) that completely overturned millenia of Judeo-Christian tradition, is filled with historical/grammatical errors, and has no evidence to support it versus (2) A psychologically troubled child started a new religious movement with its own new Bible and ended up getting a bit carried away. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Come to the true Christ and live!
Thanks for knocking down a straw-man!
Joseph Smith wasn't a biblical scholar, particulary so when he was translating the Book of Mormon.
It's been a year now...
Oh man!! This is big!
So according to the expansion theory that Ostler proposes did an ancient prophet named Nephi know that someone named Jesus would be born 600 years after his family left Jerusalem, that he would atone for the sins of the world, die on a cross (an instrument of torture that may not have been invented yet) and be resurrected? Did he perform Christian baptisms hundreds of years before Christ?
It seems like Joseph Smith's worldview could influence the vocabulary and explain KJV language in the text. But it cannot explain away the degree to which 6th Century B.C.E. prophets speak about and engage in practices that are extremely anachronistic.
It actually does, though. Blake's explanation is that this was expanded ex post facto. Make sure you fully read his article: www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V20N01_68.pdf
I disagree with Blake's theory. He admitted that Joseph claimed he received the translation directly from God. Why don't we just take him at his word? It matches the journal accounts of the scribes as well. My opinion: When Joseph looked through the Urim & Thummim he literally saw the English translation in front of him and he simply dictated it to the scribes. So, God didn't give revelation through "feelings" and then Joseph used his own vocabulary to describe it (Methodist / Modern Christian / etc), Joseph didn't pick what words to use, he simply dictated what he saw on the page. If the theory is that God had to convey feelings and Joseph had to think of how to explain that in English, then why are there words that don't exist in any English dictionary, like Ziff and Rameumtum? Joseph couldn't have written them since they weren't in his vocabulary. That completely contradicts Blake's theory. The journal entries explain that Joseph had to spell these words to the scribes. Also, if Joseph were picking the words, he would have used 18th century English, but the Book of Mormon is written in the same style of Old English as the Bible (~ 15th century).
So, why are there anachronisms in the Book of Mormon? God most likely delegated to someone in the spirit world to prepare the English translation so that Joseph could read it through the Urim & Thummim (maybe Mormon or Moroni?). This Angel probably did the translation just prior to Joseph's birth and they would have had access to the full New Testament as well as knowledge of events occurring in Joseph's time period. In fact, they probably had visions of the future as well, as many prophets have experienced in scripture.
Blake explains in his original article that the expansion theory isn't a perfect theory to begin with. In his podcast he even states that wordprint studies, inverted parallelisms, a different cultural grammar not specific to the one used in the 19th century, and the use of certain words, etc., can be used as evidence against the expansion theory. What he does say though is that any coherent explanation of the Book of Mormon must accept to some extent the expansion theory. (Interestingly, the vast majority LDS scholars today accept varying portions of Ostler's expansion theory.)
Also, no, the use of other vocabulary may not actually contradict his theory. There is the logical possibility that Joseph was given some kind of mental stimuli on the part of God to render the word as it would have been said more or less in English which isn't beyond the scope of Ostler's theory. Nowhere does he claim that God can't just give him the spelling of a word. In his article he cites how Joseph could feel pure intelligence coursing through him in the process. There could have been times when Joseph received the word from God and dictated the rest according to how Ostler describes it.
Joseph also made several doctrinal changes to the Book of Mormon in 1 Nephi 11 and 20, so it doesn't seem that if he really believed the translation came directly from God, he wouldn't have had the audacity to change the text ex post facto. Further, if it came from God, why would it transmit errors specific to the KJV bible?
faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/scholar-survey-kjv-translation-errors-in-bom-isaiah/
I don't rely on any man to tell me what to think or feel about the Book of Mormon. My knowledge is only based on The SPIRIT OF REVELATION AND PROPHECY. I'm very familiar with those manifestations during my study experience on the Book of Mormon. What else can I say!
SO, I SHOULD BELIEVE, OF OUR TIME, THE DAYS SINCE THE VISION OR THE OF DIRECTION TO JOSEPH SMIRH, JR. THAT IT IS ACRONYSTIC OF OUR TIME TO ASK OTHERS , WHO DO YOU BELIEVE , WROTE THE BOOK OF MORMON, ANOTHER TESTAMENT OF JESUS CHRIST AND WHO BROUGHT IT FORTH TO THE WORLD OR, DRUM ROLL PLEASE, DID JOSEPH SMITH JR, WRITE THE BOOK OF MORMON.
DID I GET THIS RIGHT?😅
D&C 1:23-24 speaks to this principle of God speaking to His servants in their weakness and according to their language - "That the fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed by the weak and the simple unto the ends of the world, and before kings and rulers. 24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding."
Ether 12:39 likewise indicates this: "39 And then shall ye know that I have seen Jesus, and that he hath talked with me face to face, and that he told me in plain humility, even as a man telleth another in mine own language, concerning these things;"
I believe even scriptures such as Alma 29:8 speaks to this sort of thing: "For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true."
Thank you for sharing this video. I wish more of us could understand these concepts. Many are being deceived and led astray because they won't look deeply enough, with faith, to find these sorts of answers.
Jesus Christ never required anyone to believe the Book of Mormon was true.
So thankful!
So is the pastor correct? Are these just 19th century ideas passed off as ancient ones?
If 'Passed off' suggests Joseph was attempting to fit a criteria that conformed to an achronistic scholarly interpretation of Hebrew culture then no. Those who believe in the gift and power of God in the Church suggest Joseph wasn't attempting to do anything other than to translate a series of plates given to him the way he knew how. Simple as that. The video indicates that it is much more complicated in a scholarly approach, than simply to critique the Book of Mormon based on the similarities or conveniences of 19th century Christianity. Scholarship is or should be much less interested in that prejudice albeit practical in a godless mindset, and more in discovery which is to look at evidence for and against this possibility which scholarly believers will pursue further than most
Interesting. I know there has been very little scholarly discovery as you say, but if you are familiar with the Bible scholar Dan McClellan, he suggests that the current consensus is that it is a 19th century work. This video addresses that fact that it could be both somehow, and you state that believers think it could only be ancient. I think more work could be done, but it is a bit confusing in the mean time.
The Mound Builder Myth
View of the Hebrews
The Late War
KJV Bible
All these contribute to the text. The anachronisms in the book of Mormon are countless and overwhelmingly damning to it being a historical text.
One must also account for Joseph being a treasure digger and practice in the occult and magic. The same seer stone he used to translate with was the same one he used to look for treasure. the same one that he was arrested, tried, and convicted for fraud and treasure seeking in 1826.
@@marathon-3hr So you are gonna ignore the pieces of evidence Blake cites in the article? Because you must be prepared to explain those away in order for your statements to be taken seriously.
www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V20N01_68.pdf
"
1. Resemblances between Israelite law, international treaties, and laws gov-
erning war and oath forms (Rasmussen 1982; R. Johnson 1982; Morise
1982).
2. Hebrew, Egyptian, and classical names which appear in the Book of
Mormon but not in the Bible (Nibley 1973, 192-96; Nibley 1957, 242-54;
Nibley 1948, 85-90; Carlton and Welch 1981; Tvedtnes 1977). Though
many of these names could be biblical variants, others are difficult to explain
as Joseph Smith's inventions. Paanchi, Pahoran, and Pacumeni, for example,
are Egyptian names which are sometimes transliterated exactly as they stand
in the Book of Mormon, while Korihor is a close variant of Herihor, prede-
cessor to 'Amon-Pi'ankhy in about 734 B.C. (Baer 1973).
3. Description of military, social, and political institutions of sixth-century
Israel corroborated by the Lachish letter and other recently discovered sources
(Nibley 1982b; Nibley 1952, 4-12, 20-26, 107-18; Nibley 1957, 47-111;
R. Smith 1984).
4. Accurate and consistent geographical detail (England 1982; Nibley
1952,123-28).
5. Ancient forms of government (Bushman 1976; Nibley 1973, 281-82;
Nibley 1952, 20-26; Nibley 1957, 82-86).
6. Evidence that the Book of Mormon assigned value to the cardinal direc-
tions with south representing the sacred and north the profane (Alma 22;
46:17; Eth. 7:6). It also presents a social organization revolving around a
ritual center from which government, territorial order, and communal sanctity
flowed. The moral order of life and understanding of the covenant were also
linked to territoriality (Olsen 1983). These symbolic aspects of territoriality
are common in ancient societies.
"
As well as an accurate understanding of covenant renewal festivals, the prophetic commission and throne theophany, and the prophetic lawsuits. I'll be waiting...
@@marathon-3hr And Blake doesn't deny that there are modern influences in the Book of Mormon, let alone that there are a lot of them.
If he believes his doctrine is true and not wanting to seak the truth then he is waisting his time. God cannot be deceived and He will not bless the wicked.
The only way to truly understand the book of Mormon is to study the mound builder theories of the time. The book of Mormon is clearly based on the mound builder myth, and to say that the critics of the book of Mormon stop before they figure out the truth is completely untrue and misleading. If the book of Mormon was what it claims to be, “ the truest book on earth” then why don’t we see church leaders debating in an open forum? The reason is because they would be humiliated with the overwhelming evidence that is out there, also because the church leaders are too busy building malls and creating fake companies with your tithing money.
I think you’re right that many church leaders would be humiliated in an open debate forum by the world’s antagonist experts. But that’s merely because the church leaders are not philosophically sophisticated, experienced debaters and apologists. They are called to their positions under different pretenses. Looking at the leadership hierarchy of the church to be experts in all things related to the Church is silly. You can understand and appreciate that, correct? The leaders in the institutional structure don’t need to be, and certainly aren’t, theologians and apologists of the utmost caliber. Not every apostle is Paul.
@@eS-ql7vm
Thanks for responding, I’m not a professional but I can read, and that’s all you need to be able to do to make these so called prophets of God look like a fool. In recent years, the church has had to come clean about its history, not because it wanted to, but because it was going to be sued if it didn’t. I can’t believe how many LDS members don’t know the true story of Joseph Smith, the Joseph Smith that is on the churches own website. He was a treasure digger, created an illegal bank, and snuck away in the middle of the night to avoid paying penalties, a child molester, as he slept with children as young as 14, and a treasonous, as he burn down a printing press because he didn’t like what was said in its newspaper. The Bible says to be very cautious of people that declare themselves as profits. I take the statement very seriously and if somebody declares himself as a profit, I’m going to leave no stone unturned to find out if it’s true or not. Now we know that the profits of today are building malls with our tithing money And creating illegal companies to hide money, this is all disgusting and very easy to prove. You don’t have to be anyone to make these prophets look like fools. If this church was true, these so-called profits should be able to come out from under their rock and prove it, after all, they have God on their side, right? No they don’t so be safe under your rock prophets!
So the tldr is the BoM is philosophies of men mingled with scripture?
The Book of Mormon refers to crucifixion hundreds of years BEFORE the Persians invented this brutal execution method and therefore obviously before the Romans adopted this practice into their own executions. But its clear that the New Testament sitting on Joe Smith's table contains references and language about this. What is the "Reformed Egyptian" word for "crucifixion". How can you know since there is no evidence that Joe Smith's "Reformed Egyptian" ever even existed?
The principle of Ockahm's Razor requires us to choose the simple and most obvious answer. The Book of Mormon was no "revelation fro God" through Joe Smith's magic, treasure-hunting rock. He copied crucifixion language from the King James translation of the Bible, from which he plagiarized entire passages verbatim, including the KJT's unique translational anomalies.
1. Why did Joseph Smith recieve a record written on gold plates when he actually channeled from a stone in a hat?
2. Why were lds people not told this for over 150 yrs.?
3. Why would Hebrew Isrealites write a record in "Reformed Egyptian" , a language which they did not speak , and which does not exist, upon plates which were not used (and likely did not exist either)?
1. Because you can't have an expanded text without an ancient underlying text. You can't render a record that doesn't exist.
2. Most people for a hundred years after the publication of the Book didn't know about the specifics. Kind of like how the King Follett discourse wasn't known to most of the Church until almost a half a century after it was recorded.
3. First, Reformed Egyptian is nowhere stated that its a spoken language; second, the plates were used in the process. And no, it is not unlikely they existed. Did you even read the article?
www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V20N01_68.pdf
"Anachronisms"
"the Book of Mormon"
Really?
No really?
Find out the Community of Christ church next. They’ve basically left Latter-Day Saint movement.
Out of all Mormon apologists Blake Ostler is the most high on copium: We should just completely disregard how witnesses and Joseph Smith described the BofM and the translation process and how the Book of Mormon describes itself and the translation process because then you are left having to explain how a book could be the most correct book on earth when it’s original translation was filled with errors and anachronisms. Also it only by obscuring what it means for an ancient record to be translated by the gift and power of god that we can salvage our worldview. It worked for the Book of Abraham with the catalyst theory right?
The Book of Mormon is chloroform in print - Mark Twain
so is Numbers.