Ignorance imparts sure knowledge. Know it as you know that you live. Ever ready to take their critics down for the count with one quick blow to the gut and another to the chin, Mormon apologists slug right with Joseph Smith's inviolable youthful ignorance. No way could he have invented names for the Book of Mormon like Enos, Corihor, Amos, Zeezrom, Neum, Abinadi and Isabel—common among Native Americans to this very day and quite obviously cut from the same cloth as Sitting Bull, Lone Eagle, Kicking Bear, Snowbird, Sacred Dancer, Pretty Flower, etc.—nor could anyone so practiced at biblical mimicry and pilfering* come up with chiasmus (a rhetoric inversion of the second of two parallel phrases, etc. found in the Bible but not at all limited to it). Then they punch left with the immovable, unbending, unwavering certitude (they know it as they know that they live) that God has provided every single evidentiary straw and clincher that the most critical, extravagant or exigent imagination could ask for, conceive, fabricate or invent.
Chiasmus in Psalm 124:7
a We have escaped as a bird
b From the snare of the fowlers.
b The snare is broken
a And we have escaped.
Aha! But textual analysis proves conclusively that every Book of Mormon author had a different style.
Aha yourself! Most of the Book of Mormon is said to have been abridged by Mormon (The Words of Mormon, verses 5,6). This leaves only the words of Nephi, Jacob, Mormon and Moroni in original, unabridged form. Another, conclusive consideration: Any writer is capable of expression in several quite distinct styles. Joseph Smith's copious writings clearly evidence this—quite apart from the readily detected differences between his "thee and thou" simulations of King James English and those in the colloquial English of his day. Results of author identification through textual analysis have so far proved to be unreliable and inconclusive. Vastly aided by contemporary computer power, evaluations nonetheless are too subjective in nature, the large data bases essential for objective comparisons and appraisals still non-existent.
As a professional translator and a professor of Foreign Languages who has taught courses in translation, this writer knows that a good one must be couched in language best understood by those to whom it is directed. The Urim and Thummim astonishingly chose the English spoken in the year 1611 rather than that of Joseph Smith's time. Smith had to be extremely pleased with the insensate instrument's unfathomable choice. Dictating to a scribe one phrase at a time as the device displayed the words on the peep stone (a marvelous forerunner of TV), couldn't be beat—except by copying whole pages, one after another, right out of the Bible which Hugh Nibley and other LDS apologists have to admit that Smith did (and readily do), as though this merely substantiates just how clever (or as they would put it, how perceptive*) he was. There's no gainsaying the brilliance of those Urim and Thummim, which clearly knew which non-contemporary dialect of English would make the formidable task easiest for the young man.
*Smith allegedly perceived that the words generated by the Urs and Thums perfectly matched those of the King James translation of the Bible, so why bother to make any further use of an incredible instrument in an utterly miraculous manner never ever, before or since, vouchsafed to any other human? Is it at all conceivable that the inconceivable amazement, excitement, thrill and supernal rapture he must have felt quickly evanesced, dwindling into naught but a necessary task accomplished more effectively by holding down the pages of a fat volume like the Bible, contrasted with just effortless gazing now and then at a stone?
The tissue of Smith's far-fetched lies issued forth stretched so transparently thin that it covers his devious deceptions no better than the emperor's fabled clothes hid one inch of his skin.
Amazing that the device could translate even one word to any language, inasmuch as the Bible's Urim and Thummim basically could only answer "yes" or "no" to queries posed by Canaanite and Israelite high priests of yore, who of necessity had to be meticulously clothed in their sacred apparel in order to make the magical metallic, stone-studded thing work. Very stringent requirements applied to its possession and use, based to modern minds on weird superstitions, black magic, priestcraft, and the gullibility of the masses. You had to be dressed just right or the "Urs" and "Thums" would refuse to work. To enhance their chances of success, those ancient priests quite possibly may have purified themselves beforehand by washing behind their ears as well as respectfully refraining from picking their noses—in effect, charming and cajoling those willful things* into behaving as desired. ("-im" is a Hebrew plural morpheme, rendered here as English /s/.)
*Things... Objects... Inanimate matter... Animated only in fairy tales. You need a magic wand. Unassumingly omitting mention of any personal merits or skills that might have had a role in this, Smith let the world assume that a heavenly messenger must have waved a fantastic, amazingly magical one for him—in like manner as for those deserving Canaanites.
Animate... Inanimate... The tongue can become as animated as a flag fluttering in the wind. Without your approval or consent it can slip up and occasion a pratfall just as you are yearning for the approval of those about you. Contrariwise, it can fumble and bumble when you are trying your very best to be articulate and profound or, at the very least, articulate something. The one young lady you admired above all others acknowledged your existence one day by glancing at you. Your treacherous tongue froze up, leaving you deaf and dumb. "Dumb" in terms of stupid as well as mute. Your foot can slip up too, as perfidiously as the tongue, causing you to put it in it. Animate, inanimate... living and lifeless, one and the other making our existence easily as interesting, exciting, and adventurous as that of the hammer that somehow never is where you last left it.
The fact that the wizardly instrument was used by pagan Canaanite high priests eliminates any possibility that it could have been the sacred, unbelievably amazing device Mormons and others have accepted it to be. The priests already knew, of course, whether the answer would be yes or no. Their sacred routine ritual guaranteed 100% that the gods' will would coincide exactly with theirs and the people would all superstitiously fall in line, not daring to disobey a sacrosanct decree straight from heaven.
Nor have many innocents wavered—from the early 1800s till now—in accepting as divine the workings of an astounding device that they knew of from the Bible (Exodus 28:30, 1 Samuel 28:6, etc.), capable of signalling yes or no, and hidden up with the gold plates to come forth for use by the unlearned young Joseph... and the absolutist, suppressive priestcraft of antiquity rose up with it "from the dust" too—for him and for all of his "prophet, seer and revelator" successors ever since, its autarchic power deployed to compass sea and land anew, exacting unquestioned acceptance of dogmatic doctrines and practices with total intolerance of any buts or maybes from adherents' brains. A formulaic procedure guaranteeing the unamimous raising of right hands to the square in support of all leaders and of significant actions, is trumpeted as a showpiece of democratic governance.
What qualifications did Joseph Smith have, aside from his vaunted ignorance? Well, above all, his talent for writing fictions and creating gold plates, brass plates, peep stones, Urs and Thums that knew Canaanite, Hebrew, Reformed Egyptian and archaic English, white Native Americans, innocent children cursed by God to be dark-skinned and loathsome, etc. out of the stuff from which daydreams are made. Only later did he devise and don priestly raiment; i.e. "the garments of the holy priesthood," with symbolic breast and knee marks. In those early days, not yet attired precisely right, he must have used some really sweet talk to get them Urs and Thums to do their incredible job... (Wow! A many centuries old metallic breastplate with two stones in it that had been places, knew what it was doing and what it could do, cruising through time and space on its broad-minded missions to both pagans and believers—all this of its own volition and extorting no commissions!...) or was a frown and a threatening balling by Smith of his fists more effective? Enlightened, realistic Mormon scholars might contend that with the heavenly messenger and his wand standing by, Smith didn't have to deal with the humanoid Urs and Thums in any such manner.
Curiously, to human minds, mystic and sacred are typically tied to hoary and ancient—as though everything viewed as old and archaic today was never at one time contemporary and commonplace—spider for example, compared with kob, found today only in cobweb. So, of course, the Book of Mormon had to be in archaic, obsolete language, a travesty abetting Smith's outright plagiarizing of the 1611 King James Bible. (Spider evolved from Old English spithra, to spin.)
Little Miss Muffet
Sat on a tuffet,
Eating her curds and whey.
There came a big kob her
To sit by and pester
And frightened Miss Muffit away.
|
*Reproduced in King James English, the Book of Mormon contains many biblical quotes, from Genesis, Exodus, Job, Micah, Hosea, the Psalms, Isaiah, Malachi and the Sermon on the Mount. Twenty of the 26 books of the New Testament, are represented by one or more quotes in the Book of Mormon.
Unabashed use of an extraordinary number of unacknowledged, unattributed passages amounts to outright unprincipled plagiarism. Taken verbatim from the King James Version of the Bible, some of them repeat mistakes of the King James translators. Others are clearly anachronistic, appearing in the Book of Mormon in impossible chronological order. Sometimes, in a feeble attempt to cover his plagiarisms, Smith makes minor changes, adding the words "Red Sea" to Isaiah 9:1, for example, which makes no sense in the geographical context. (Source: Curt van den Heuvel's "The Bible in the Book of Mormon.")
Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations. (Isaiah 9:1)
...by way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan... (2 Nephi 19:1) The Sea of Galilee is to the east of Zebulun/Naphtali, the Mediterranean to the west, and the Red Sea is far to the south—nowhere near "Galilee of the nations." Smith added this totally off-base detail to definitively prove that he wasn't copying the words of Isaiah directly from the King James Bible but from Nephi's gold plates. Those who objectively analyze Smith's fictions know that he flat out struck out on this and didn't get to first base with any of his deceptions. Any number of foul balls is the best he could do.
To beef up his work, Smith plagiarized 22 chapters from Isaiah (one third of the 66). Quite astounding.
Question: What sublime lessons was the Book of Mormon's Jacob teaching his people through his recital of Isaiah 9:1? No doubt as "his people" raptly hearkened unto him, his superlatively well chosen quotation caused them to "lift up their hearts and rejoice for all men... likening them unto themselves and unto all men." (2 Nephi 11:8, slightly paraphrased). Whoa! Was ever a dimly—if at all—understood scripture of such fabulous value, all men likening it unto themselves and joyfully pondering and liking whatever likeness they could unscramble, untangle, puzzle out, figure out, sniff out, smoke out, dig out, dope out, stumble onto, tumble into or bumble onto? Apparently these were the most pertinent and very best from among all of Isaiah's many words, including those in 1 Nephi 20-21, that Smith could come up with for those fictitious ancient American Hebrews of his.
Answer: The enormous, immense, enduring, vital, critical, crucial value and transcendental significance, pertinence and importance of the recitation to "his people" of Isaiah's words on the dimness afflicting the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali is so perfectly obvious that any expectation of an explication on Jacob's, Nephi's or Joseph Smith's part would simply be silly, in that even the most unknowledgeable reader of that time or ours can easily identify the "her" and the "he" and cast brilliant light on the dimness, her vexation and affliction, and the why, wherefore, whence, when and until when of it. Modern scholars have provided a beautiful, highly illuminating exegis of this, quite beyond the power of Smith. Good grief! Couldn't Nephi, at the very least, have explained why Galilee is captioned "of the nations"? But, Oooh, what a powerfully effective tool in Nephi's hands to decelerate the dwindling and perishing of his people in unbelief!
Want to hazard a guess as to why Smith selected Isaiah 9:1? Sure, I haphazardly guess that inasmuch as a location is given, Joseph Smith, Jr. latched onto this as an opportunity to add a detail ("by way of the Red Sea") to make perfectly clear the fact that the quote is an authentic one from the "brass plates" and not an unconscionable outright plagiarization from the King James Version of the Bible. As stated elsewhere, if these brass plates really had existed in the Holy Land around Isaiah's time, sufficient copies of them would have been made to assure their existence down to our day.
Consider how handily Smith added line upon line of scripture to his story through recourse to solid, impeccable, unassailable sources: handy dandy plates of both gold and brass and both named and nameless angels (for example, "Moroni" and "an angel in the last night").
As another particle of evidence that he wasn't outright plagiarizing but, rather, faithfully translating by means of the Urim and Thummim, Smith improved on some of the Savior of the world's most sacred words: Blessed are [all] they that mourn..., etc. (3 Nephi 12:4-10). Oh, that is all so utterly perfect and poetic now!
In 3 Nephi, chapters 24-25, the Savior "expands all things from the beginning." Wonderful! All things! Straight from the Lord's mouth! So why does Joseph Smith have the Savior quote from the biblical book of Malachi immediately thereafter, inasmuch as "all things" had already been expounded? Is there anything at all that any prophet could know and express better than the Lord of creation? But putting words in the Son of God's mouth is a daunting, yea, impossible task, so Smith had the Savior of the world (the Word!) quote from a nameless mortal when by all reason and logic he would have delivered every message himself in his own inimitable words. "Nameless" because Malachi means "my messenger" and biblical scholars point out that it was employed as a title, not a name. The correct designation of this book should be "My Messenger"—so translated in every language.
Well, to flesh out his fiction, Smith was under the uncompromising necessity to "expand all things" and what better way to accomplish this than with biblical plagiarisms? He should have stuck to lifting them from the Old Testament. After all, the New Testament didn't exist at the time of Lehi, Nephi, Jacob, et al. One of his most glaring anachronisms and plagiarisms consists of references to "the Holy Ghost" (an archaic designation found only in Old English and no other languages, where the equivalents of "Holy Spirit" are employed).
The Book of Mormon includes a number of historically impossible, B.C., allusions to the Holy Ghost. Check it out yourself, in 1 Nephi, 2 Nephi, and Alma. Check also your Bible's topical guide or index and you will find no Old Testament references to either the Holy Ghost or the Holy Spirit. The "Spirit of God" cannot correctly be equated with either. Keep in mind that the Hebrews have always been strictly monotheistic (except for believers in Yeshua as His Son and the Messiah), and there has been only One. A Trinity was unthinkable.
Numerology revindicated. BYU scholar emphasizes revelation in translation, says a bold-type heading to an article in MormonTimes, April 17, 2008. Actually, professor Daniel C. Peterson merely re-emphasizes the supreme significance of Joseph Smith's inviolable youthful ignorance—noted, claimed, and victoriously proclaimed on a regular basis.
"Making up the book 'on the fly' would have been impossible for the unlearned young man. He would have had to memorize some 5,000 words daily, day after day, an impossible feat," the scholar says.
Pythagoras and other philosophers of his time believed that because mathematical concepts were more "practical" (easier to regulate and classify) than physical ones, they had greater actuality. This is so true! Look at that number 5,000—multiplied daily! What more can or need be said? One might ask, however, how Peterson came up with such an impressive number. Even more impressive is the number 300,000. That's 5,000 x 60, the number of whole working days that LDS scholars calculate Smith spent translating the gold plates.
Well, 5,000 words a day or 300,000 words total, for Smith to memorize in a fixed sequence?
Has Daniel Peterson ever written a book? Obviously an article, at least. So did he proceed to memorize even ten words a day in order to do it? What's to memorize? He had in mind what he wanted to express and the task was simply to put it in words.
Peterson believes that no human, including Smith, could make up a story "on the fly" and dictate it to somoeone—never hesitating, never at a loss for words. That's the story. What's it source? Who gave it wings? You do know about that blanket, don't you, Dr. Peterson? There because the Urim and Thummim were too sacred for any mortal but a prophet to see? Yet Oliver Cowdery did see them—plain as day, with no supernatural intervention, as well as through an angel come down from Heaven. So why the blanket? To hide the fact that Smith was reading from a prepared script? Whose word do we have for any of this, any way?
There is no such thing as a simple hoax. The more feverish the efforts to accord and preserve semblances of credibility the more elaborate they become and a hoax becomes a joke.
Peterson said the Book of Mormon was revealed to Smith through a seer stone. Smith never went through the golden pages of the ancient record, but instead put the seer stone in a hat, then buried his head in the hat to shut out ambient light. The stone lit up a line of text, about 30 words at a time, which Smith then dictated to his scribe. Once the text was transcribed correctly, the line disappeared and a new one came into focus, Peterson said, quoting witnesses who were 19th-century farmers associated with Smith. (Also from above article in MormonTimes, April 17, 2008)
Seer stones, Dr. Peterson, doubly effective, set in a bow—the Urim and Thummim (according to Smith's account in its final form, at variance with your professional, careful, credible research). Such a childishly simple process and yet Oliver Cowdery, a teacher, miserably failed when invited to try it. Those stubborn, discerning stones quite obviously favored only those whose lack of learning fully freed up their fanciful imagination and uncurbed creativity.
Why did Moroni et al. even bother to engrave their stories on the plates? "Smith didn't even go through the golden pages." What? All that work by the ancient scribes for nothing? But wait! Let's see. Witnesses were essential, indeed an absolute necessity. Smith had to have some. Otherwise, who in the world would or could believe the prophet's unbelievable tall tale; ergo, the otherwise entirely unnecessary gold plates. Astute individuals, it should be pointed out, find the witnesses sworn testimonies even less believable than the story of those plates that had the appearance of gold.
One fold. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd. (John 10:16, 3 Nephi 15:17)
The only domesticated animals in Ancient America were the dog, the llama, the alpaca, the guinea pig, the turkey and the Muscovy duck. The term "fold" could have application only to llamas and alpacas, so for this to make any sense at all to ancient Native Americans, "the land Bountiful" would have to be located in llama/alpaca land (mainly Bolivia, Chile and Peru), where the only form of communication besides speech, gestures and body language was through quipus, a system of knotted cords limited primarily to expressing quantities. So apropos of "other sheep," there was no such animal in ancient America—nor was there a "fold," as expressed in the Book of Mormon fantasy.
The fact of the matter: The other sheep are the gentiles and the reality of one shepherd and one fold has been established. Through the Apostle Paul and others (Acts 16:10) and directly (Acts 15:14), they have heard His voice and the evidence of this is everywhere. In the Western Hemisphere not one trace of written or other evidence has been found. Another consideration: Isn't there an expectation of continuation in the Messiah's words? Shouldn't the two folds that have become one continue on for longer than a mere 400 years, when the last supposed Messiahns in the western hemisphere were annihilated?
Of course (and no surprise) there is a diversity of sheep in the one fold, including black ones. Mormons claim to have the only true gospel (in its restored fullness) and the only true church. This is wholly in the spirit of the scribes and Pharisees, whose penchant for power (i.e., control) was established through arbitrary, autocratic absolutes and indoctrination in them from earliest childhood, a tragic departure from the spirit of the gospel. But yes, Mormons have God's one and only true church franchise, a fact as obvious as that other one: The American Indians are Hebrews and therefore the Book of Mormon is "true." No DNA check required! One swift glance at Native Americans' black (2 Nephi 5:21), loathsome, relatively hairless skins from below the scalp on down (totally unlike hairy Semites), irrefutably confirms and certifies to one and to all that they unquestionably truly and really are accursed Israelites and therefore this sacred book indubitably is indeed "the word of God."
Swallow this blasphemous tall tale, a scurvy besmirching of the divine attributes of God (satanically engendered slander... miniscule microbe Smith's insanely arrogant character assassination of the Creator of our infinitely vast universe, infecting the unwary with this noxious nonsense), and everything else—all of his heavenly visitations, revelations, visions and translations—falls neatly and sweetly into place. (Oh, sure. Right!)
Dark skins! Choke, gasp, shudder. So God, our Heavenly Father, cursed the Lamanites to be unlovely and unlovable! To followers of the Messiah, God is a God of love, urging us to love one another no matter what our race, skin color, physiognomy, socio-economic status, mental capacity or whatever, yet in the Book of Mormon "God" unloads onto some of his children from heaven (the divine dwelling place of love, light and truth) the dreadful curse of dark skins (Oh, no, how loathsome and horrible, how indescribably ghastly!), incubating in the pure, fair and delightsome Nephites germs of irrational, ungodly contempt and aversion guaranteed to safeguard them from contaminating contact with their morally inferior siblings and their evil offspring. An inescapable implication: dark skin is a signifier of moral degradation and decay, whereas pure white is pure. That's pure white, which excludes Jews. Any doubts? Adolf Hitler had none.
What a corrupt concept of God! Wrathful, doom-dispensing and cruel, inflicting dire punishments altogether out of proportion with the offense—not only on astonished older brothers, less favored than their finger-pointing sibling, but on their totally innocent progeny? ("Why aren't we sick with—nay, not dying—from shame?" Laman and Lemuel would have been wondering. "Why is our fair skin not red with self-disgust and embarrassment but instead getting tinged with black? How can it be that we are becoming blackskins, not redskins?") Will Mormons ever wake up and let their basically good hearts impel changes in their thinking, their brains? May a kind, just, fair God grant that it happen.
Change characterizes everything in the universe. Static is dead. Change is tied to freedom. Healthy competition (within and among churches, too) is a requisite for improvement and progress. Yes, the various groups of believers in the Messiah should be more unified in doctrine and organization, but Mormon-type strictures and absolutes are inherently stultifying. What is the gospel? One dogmatic "true" control after another? No. It is the Messiah's teachings, which have been miraculously preserved and translated to many languages, and the fulfillment of prophecies regarding his birth, life, death, resurrection, and atonement for our sins. Those who truly accept this and act accordingly—above all those imbued with love of God and fellowmen—are the Savior's disciples and church.
Worship that is not free is worthless. Control over others is exercised in many overt and covert ways. In some religions no deviations whatsoever are allowed. An example: What if, in a particular culture, you stood by as others faced in a certain direction, prostrated themselves and repeated set prayers that must not be modified in the slightest? The unbeliever, heretic or apostate is immediately identified and may be subjected to severe sanctions and punishments. What if you ate pork and mixed together meat and dairy products? What if men had unholy shaved cheeks, jaws and chins? What if you smoked, drank tea, coffee and alcohol or failed to wear sacred prescribed headgear or garments,* things easily spotted by the thought and conformity police—vigilant defenders of the faith? Such coercion is totally alien to the Messiah's gospel. Unfeigned, unforced, spontaneous willingness and gladness are primary essentials in it. What is in the heart is what counts, not external appearances and motions which mark and smoothly pave hypocrisy's broad downward road.
*Mormons have given this word the curious, very restricted meaning of "underwear." So don't worry yourself sick over whether your garments (in the ordinary sense of clothing) will be "free of the sins and the blood of this generation." Only shorts, panties, bras, etc. are going to be washed free of sins and blood.
Hey! That's unfunny! Not just any underwear! Exclusively certified Mormon "holy priesthood" unmentionables with the requisite marks guaranteeing health in your navel, etc. And it's the symbolism that's important here.
Absolutely, and if the sleeves of the garments can't be spotted through your shirt or blouse, be assured that you will not be viewed as a virtuous, worthy temple-goer who is living up to the requirements of the holy endowments received there, and the epithets "unworthy," "back-slider" and "jack Mormon" will be applied to you.
How did this notion get started anyway, that wearing special garments sets apart and institutes certain individuals as consecrated authorities, conferring on them special powers, priestly functions, prestige and perks? Hmmm. Probably got underway way back with pre-historic cavemen and their holey hides.
The genesis of epidermal pigmentation genes. In a Near Eastern folk tale that became Holy Writ in Genesis, Kabil (Cain) committed the heinous crime of murdering his brother Habil (Abel). God therefore placed a "mark" on Cain, which in an unwarranted, unscholarly distortion has been viewed as the curse of a black skin. Joseph Smith borrowed this borrowed story for insertion in his Book of Mormon. His simple-minded early 19th century apperception that skin coloration is tied to divine approbation and castigation caused him to paint the story of Laman and Lemuel with the same brush that has colored Kabil.
Just suppose that Smith's "divinely revealed" concept is correct. How account then for Oriental skins—not black, not white? Well, logically, Smith would affirm that two ancestors of theirs, probably around 600 B.C., committed a sin not quite as shocking as Laman's and Lemuel's (2 Nephi 5:3, 5:19-24). They might, for example, have refused to accept a sister as their teacher. Rejecting a younger brother's instruction, by contrast, is very, very baaaaaad! For a reprehensible sin of that enormity, Laman's and Lemuel's "skin of blackness" should have been exactly that—not those admirable tones of bronze show-cased by their "seed" for which the envious spend hours under tanning salon lamps.
Whites can be so ethnocentric, one wonders at their egocentricity. In a great movie, "The Gods Must Be Crazy," a Black in deepest Africa looks on a gorgeous blonde (the first White he has ever seen) with utter distaste. She is so pale, sickly and weak-looking, she must have a dreadful disease. It is a satire, of course, and the world-wide existence of mestizos, mestiços, métis, half-breeds, etc. is adequate evidence that skin color is no barrier to love... and lust.
Cooperative glottochronology. Several American Indian languages analyzed in central California have been found to be related to languages of northwest Siberia even though separated by "ocean barriers" for some 2,500 years (Exploring the Book of Mormon, p.29). For certain Mormon apologists this removes all linguistic obstacles to acceptance of the Book of Mormon as "the word of God." Why bother to desperately search for data when simple, neat extrapolations and syllogisms are so easy?
Well, now, if Finno-Ugric and Miwoken cognates* can be found over such distances and time, shouldn't Hebrew or Egyptian cognates with Mohican, Navajo, Mayan, Nahuatl, Quechua, Miwoken, etc. show up all over two continents—and not just in, say, central California? The apologists have only succeeded in highlighting concrete evidence of the fact that Native Americans are of Asian, not Hebrew, extraction. Since no real cognates (not accidental ones) with Hebrew or Egyptian have been found and inasmuch as glottochonology isn't going to preserve certain linguistic relics just to please Mormons, these apologists have just shot themselves in the foot... again.
*Cognates are words in different languages that are notably similar. If large numbers of cognates are shared by two languages, it may be assumed that they are sister languages, descended from the same proto-tongue. An example from Indo-European: English nose, German Nase, Dutch neus, French nez, Spanish nariz, Italian naso, Russian nos, Hindi nak, Nepali naak, Sanskrit nasa, etc.
Another example: English mother, German Mutter, Dutch moeder, French mère, Spanish madre, Italian madre, Lithuanian mater, Celtic mathaair, Greek meter, Farsi mader, Hindi maataa, Nepali aamaa, Sanskrit matri.
Super-accelerated propagation of the species. Laman is still musing with his wife. "Know what, honey? Us Lamanites and Lemuelites are going to have to multiply like fruit flies in order to populate this land from here to everywhere in a mere 2,000 years.* Nephi and his pitiful band won't count for anything because our descendants are going to slaughter all their babies, older children, teens, singles, young marrieds, oldsters, invalids, hermits, explorers, vagabonds, and every last breeding pair of them in every nook, cranny and hiding place from one end of this land mass and offshore islands to the other. Genocide such as never recorded and translated!
*Keep in mind that according to Joseph Smith all surviving ancient Americans are Lamanites. The Nephites and previous inhabitants of the land—the "Jaredites"—had been totally annihilated. Check out "Lamanite" in the Index to Doctrine and Covenants and The Papers of Joseph Smith, Vol 1.
Two examples: "And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites." (Doctrine and Covenants 54: 8) "At this time a great desire was manifest by several of the Elders respecting the remnants of the house of Joseph—the Lamanites residing in the west..." (The Papers of Joseph Smith, p. 324)
Laman's conversation continues: "Yes, our seed will see the virtue in capturing both those with skins of blackness and delightsome skins of white as living trophies and slaves, but with prophecies to fulfill, our race... Yes, darling, we are a race already! Our new skins brazenly and blatantly blare this out with their filthy black loathsomeness... And this new race, darling, our seed, will be so uncommonly accommodating and eager to make a future great prophet's words 100% certifiably true that they will wipe every single white Nephite from off the whole face of the earth.
"Of course by some happy happenstance a dozen or so other immigrants from Jerusalem may show up and backsliders from among them and the Nephites may join us to create a critical mass that will produce an utterly inconceivable population explosion. Our progeny will be so amazingly nomadic they'll migrate from here to hell and gone in those same 200 decades. They will be so peace-loving they'll have no occasion or time for internecine fighting which could hinder their incredible population growth."
Any number of Hill Cumorahs and narrow necks of land. Upstate New York lacks topographical features matching geographical references in the Book of Mormon, so clever Mormon apologists have figured out that more than one hill had that picturesque name. There are many narrow necks of land on Western Hemisphere maps (and the isthmus of Panama doesn't fit), so wild guesses based on what is no more than a trumped-up fiction continue to stump Mormons as they lop off or stretch factualities and their "bed of Procustes" hypotheses proliferate.
Ancient American sheep, lions, horses (but no llamas, alpacas, vicuñas, guanacos, deer, elk, antelopes, buffalos, tapirs, manatees, capybaras, coatis, turkeys, rheas, peccaries, guinea pigs, jaguars, cougars, etc.), bread, wine, olive trees, silk, flax, linen, wheels, chariots, iron, steel, swords and cimeters/scimiters but no plants that America gave the world such as rubber trees, sapodilla trees (chewing gum), maize, pumpkins, squashes, cacao (cocoa, chocolate), peanuts, tomatoes, potatoes, beans of all kinds* plus atlatl spear throwers (along with bows and arrows and one well-targeted stone or rock) with which to take out a defender of a king's flocks.
*Imagine Italians without tomato sauce for pasta and pizza, Ireland and Idaho without potatoes, Nebraska without corn, Boston without beans and politicians full of something less repugnant than that stuff that happens. A failure of our education system, no doubt, but few people realize that outside of the Western Hemisphere no one had potatoes, tomatoes, corn (maize), etc. Maize, because to the British "corn" can represent any predominant crop. Don't let early historic Brit references to "corn" confuse and deceive you, therefore.
All the stupendous things that ancient America gave the world immediately caught the attention of the Spaniards and other explorers and they excitedly wrote about them in their chronicles, yet not one mention is made of them by Lehi, Nephi and company. Apparently Joseph Smith didn't know beans about this.
Bloody arms all over the place as Ammon smites them off wicked thieves attacking King Lamoni's flocks (Alma 18:27-39), sedulously determined by Mormon apologists to reflect an ancient custom in the lands from whence the Lehites came (rings true in terms of the "milieu") in which the chopped off arms of the defeated were presented by the victors to the king or chief as evidence of their success and valor. Mormon writers neglect to mention that the arms were sundered from the bodies as tokens of a great victory after the battle was over, not during it.
Hey, what a great trick! Severing the arms of "not a few" dastardly villains as they came at him with clubs, taking care to take off the whole arm—not just forearms, hands, fingers or slices of flesh—and with cool-headed control and discrimination not stabbing them in the guts as they attacked him from all sides or slashing their butts as they fled from before him. Moreover, desiring to come across as a true and valiant man of God in future readers of his exploits eyes, he took care not to kill, just repel. Of course, getting your arm whacked off back then—no antibiotics and first aid kits—meant almost certain death.
Think "Indians" and you will almost automatically think "bows and arrows," like kids playing a favorite game—right up there with "cops and robbers." Yet the dastardly thieves only had clubs as their weapons. A bit strange, eh? Short clubs, too, none long enough to reach Ammon as he neatly chopped off arms at the shoulder. No bows and arrows, no spears, no rocks. Of course not! Ammon was the designated hero and no way could he be stopped by such minor, insignificant quibbles.
A feel for wheels. "Race you across this narrow neck of land, Antipus!" Can't you just see anyone (and not just men) giving up wheels when for most of their lives they'd been an everyday item indispensable to them? What? No chariot races among the Mayans when the Spaniards landed in their lands? And no horses? How can this be?
Horses.
Book of Mormon horses (1 Nephi 18:25, Alma 18:9, 20:6, Ether 9:18) would not vanish. Mustangs run wild all over much of the Western Hemisphere and are often so numerous in the Mountain West of the U.S. that they have to be rounded up and given to anyone who will promise to feed and care for them. When the Spaniards arrived with real, non-fictitious horses, the Indians had no name for them. In Nahuatl—the language of the Aztecs—the name they coined for these animals previously unknown to them was derived from their word for deer. They were also viewed as very large dogs.
Cows, oxen, sheep, swine and goats (Ether 9:18) are domesticated animals requiring human protection, herding, corralling and care, yet long after the last Jaredite was destroyed by the Lord (Ether 1:1), fine farm animals necessarily more than a match for hungry predators—fending for themselves just fine without any human help—were on hand to welcome Lehi and company to their Promised Land. (1 Nephi 18:25) The "Lamanites" had none of these on the arrival of Europeans. Ancient American cows, oxen, sheep, swine* and goats (other than wild mountain ones) truly existed only in Joseph Smith's imagination and on his imaginary gold plates and nowhere else. *Wild peccaries are not pigs.
Money and the Four Seas. Not one single gold senine, seon, shum or limnah; not one single silver senum, amnor, ezrom or onti (Alma 11:4-13) has ever been found. Yes, the iron referred to in the Book of Mormon could oxidize away (and archaelogists would consider any such rust a valuable find) but not gold and silver coins. Archeological digs in the Near East and other regions commonly turn up many coins.
The Book of Mormon describes the Nephite and Lamanite civilization as covering "the face of the whole earth". In Helaman 3:8 the Book of Mormon says: And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, and from the sea west to the sea east.
Such a vast multitude surely would have left behind a coin or two plus evidence of the use of wheels and archaeological finds of swords, cimeters, horses, sheep, goats, cows and pigs. Yes, plus a word or two of Hebrew, Reformed Egyptian, Arabic, Chaldaic and Assyriac engraved in clay or stone.
A small quibble: The sea west and the sea east must refer to the Pacific and the Atlantic, but the sea south and the sea north? Do we have a huge island here? Let's see. Cuba? Australia? The Straits of Magellan are a sea? Did they go forth to the Arctic Ocean? The Eskimos (Inuits) are Lamanites? Obviously, we are faced at this juncture with another of the blessed mysteries. Sounds great, though. It borders on poetic. Quite a writer, that Joseph Smith!
Certain LDS apologists claim that "the face of the whole earth" refers to the Great Lakes region and go to great lengths, clutching to their bosoms every flimsy straw that nudges their imagination, to make this seem plausible. DNA, brethren! Do Not Argue, displaying your incompetence. Native American DNA is the same from the far north to the far south, encompassing North and South America, so how could "the whole earth" refer to such a limited Great Lakes site?
Two old, dark-skinned, loathsome, filthy San Blas Indians, their somewhat lighter-skinned and less loathsome children, and their little granddaughter who is endearingly white-skinned and delightsome thanks to several generations of repentance.
And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, even a sore cursing because of their iniquity... wherefore, as they were white, and exceeding fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. (2 Nephi 5:21-22)
And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people. (2 Nephi 30:6, 1978 edition, plus all others before that date.)
This "scripture" was altered to read "white pure and delightsome" in an attempt to give "white" a figurative, moral meaning rather than the clearly literal one of white skin. Later on, pure was removed, leaving just white. Finally, in the latest editions, white has been expunged and replaced by pure. Since its first publication in 1830, the Book of Mormon has been revised in over 3,900 places, partly to correct spelling and grammatical mistakes but also to remedy glaring blunders, contradictions, inconsistencies, and factual errors.
Very remarkable instruments, those Urim and Thummim, but they had no proof-reading ability and no spelling check—not for the Reformed Egyptian Caractors* on the gold plates, of course, but for Smith's brain, into which was beamed their meaning in King James English. Poor young Oliver Cowdery, the school teacher, couldn't translate like Smith because he didn't study it out in his own mind, his bosom didn't burn within him, and he must have had a stupor of thought. (Doctrine and Covenants 9:1-12). Those Urims and Thummims were impatient gadgets, intolerant of beginners. And they could tell—could those stones—when an incompetent was using them.
*See them below under the heading Caractors*—in Assyriac/Chaldaic and Arabic as well as Egyptian. *The spelling is unobjectionable. In Smith's day spelling hadn't been frozen permanently as it is today.
Study "it" out in his own mind? Now that's a wee bit vague. "It" was a Reformed Egyptian "caractor"? You could study one of those out in your own mind all day long without realizing that it was Assyriac, Chaldaic or Arabic! "It" was a crystal clear microwave burst to his mind? "It" was Oliver's challenge to make up something on his own without recourse to the manuscript which Smith doubtless had, but withheld from him, back there behind that blanket?
The Urim and Thummim, two stones set in silver bows and fastened to a breastplate, were the hardware. The software, evidently, was in the user's brain. Oliver's just wasn't wired for it, or else it was too mushy. At any event, he was blessed far beyond the wildest dreams of ordinary mortals. God spoke directly to him! Directly through Joseph Smith Jr., that is. Not only Joseph took note of Oliver's miserable inability to translate, but God himself! (Doctrine and Covenants 9:1-14. The whole section)
Imagine! Two stones! Twice as effective as the peepstone Smith used to not find buried Spanish treasure! What a ridiculous hoax! Of course, as Smith progressed in his role as prophet, he no longer needed two stones or even one. Peeping through stones was O.K. for rank beginners but beneath the dignity of a full-fledged prophet. Besides, he had his reputation to protect. Peeping through stones? Who would be stupid enough to believe a laughable thing like that? Someone whose thinking processes are as opaque as every single stone anyone will ever see? Just to be fair, go ahead! You are invited to peep through any stone you can find. Caveat: Doesn't count if you're stoned out. Allowances are made, of course, if you happen to be a prophet, seer or revelator.
Oliver Cowdery had the other-worldly bliss to be one of the Three Witnesses. He testified, with David Whitmer and Martin Harris, that he had seen the gold plates and knew that they had been translated by the gift and power of God, for (paraphrased) his voice declared it unto them, and they were shown unto them by the power of God and not of man, for an angel of God came down from heaven and brought and laid them before their eyes! (Preface to the Book of Mormon) Very impressive, but Oliver Cowdery stands alone as the only human—aside from Smith—who saw the plates the same as you or I might see a dish on a dinner table, aided by no power of God and no angel of God. Yes, Oliver allegedly attempted to translate from the gold plates, and there they were, before his very eyes, along with the Urim and Thummim! Why the hell did he need to hear the voice of God and have an angel lay them before his very eyes? Old stuff already, for him! You know, folks, this story gets weirder and queerer every time a moment is spent really reading it.
What racism? As if debasing Native Americans on the basis of the color of their skin were not enough.... "No, no! White has become pure, wherefore their sore curse is now not racist at all and not really a curse anyway...." and thus, through this inspired correcting of the word of God, they are only unenticing, impure and loathsome! Save they shall repent, of course. Golly gee! Are they ever flint-skinned and hardnosed! Have you ever seen even one repentant non-loathsome one? Half-breeds and part-breeds don't count. That's a horse of another color. This "purity" thing really complicates matters. Up till then, their degree of repentance could immediately be established by a simple assessment of the color of their skin and their level of loathsomeness. Now it is not always possible with just one quick glance to tell whether they are baptized Mormons or not.
"Where did you get that about white anyway? Have you been reading a reprint of the 1830 Book of Mormon? A 1978 edition? Hey, get with it! The latest is always the most correct. To feel irreversibly doctrinally safe and secure, get revised versions 20 or 50 years from now. Staunch believers in continuing Latter-day Saint prophet, seer and revelator revelation know that utmost fidelity to the word of God engraved in gold may unreservedly count on everlasting revealed revisions forever.
And yes! There is hope for Native Americans. God has smiled upon them and Smith and his Book of Mormon have opened the way for them to be once again, as before Laman and Lemuel's sinful rebellion, at long last.... finally.... to become not white, but.... altogether more glorious and true.... pure!"
So much for the most perfect book on earth, the infallability (and existence) of the Urim and Thummim, and the honesty of official Mormon editors in chief—every one a "prophet, seer and revelator," from Smith to the present day. As such, not a one of them could possibly cheat, misconstrue or reinvent a single word. All are equally called of God yet incontrovertibly "more equal" should the need arise to revise with unassailable, untouchable finality previous divinely inspired revisions. The pipeline is always open, of course, so with all this prophetic help God will someday get all of this right.
Under Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, the polygamous coupling of Mormon elders with Lamanite women* in order to bring forth white progeny (white, not pure, at that time), sublimating the repressive restraints of God's repentance requirement (as they sinfully fornicated) into faithful, forceful, liberating, fulfilling fulfillment of prophecy. Faith without works is dead. The more repulsive, denigrating, onerous, demeaning, distasteful, disgusting, unenticing and loathsome the work, the more precious, rewarding and rewarded the faith. *The Joseph Smith Revelations: Text and Commentary, pp. 374-376
Mormon Article of Faith No. 4. (The articles first appeared in an article furnished by Smith to Mr. John Wentworth, publisher of the Chicago Democrat, in 1842)We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. The phrase in italics must be added to justify all the tampering with God's Book of Mormon word since 1842. Such desecration! Such sacrilege! What arrogance!
Outbowderlizing Bowdler. Bowdlerize derives from the name Thomas Bowdler, an editor in Victorian times who rewrote Shakespeare, removing all profanity and sexual references so as not to offend the sensibilities of the audiences of his day. Though racy references in the Book of Mormon to "seeds," their racist mixing, and interracial sexual enticement remain unchanged, many passages that might catch the attention of anyone seriously concerned with truth, honesty, consistency and integrity have been virtuously censored and removed.
A condemnation of polygamy. "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord" (Jacob 2:24. See also Jacob 1:15 and Mosiah 11:2). Joseph Smith was still preaching against polygamy in October 1843 after he got his revelation in July 1843 commanding the practice of polygamy! (Doctrine and Covenants 132 and History of the Church Vol. 6, page 46, or Teachings of the Prophet, page 324)
A recent news bulletin: According to testimony from his 13-year-old daughter, Kingston [a fundamentalist Mormon] beat her, her mother and her siblings and forced his children to eat rotten food he dug out of the garbage, drink rotten milk and worse... The state could attempt to take away the estimated 106 children Kingston has fathered with 14 different wives if Judge Andrew Valdez decides Kingston abused and neglected the two teenage girls.
One of the most abominable legacies Joseph Smith left: polygamy, which persists among some as viciously as ever even though the LDS Church officially discontinued it Oct. 6, 1890. Not surprising that Smith should be so revered by his most diehard followers. After all, Wilford Woodruff's "Proclamation" ending polygamy (Doctrine and Covenants, last page) isn't presented as a revelation but merely as an official declaration, unlike Smith's divinely revealed words. Read Betty Webb's Desert Wives for a glimpse at the sickening, disgusting, revolting, tragic, horrendous consequences of Smith's sacred, celestial concupiscence.
What glaring blunders? This one is a dandy:
And then shall the remnant of our seed know concerning us, how that we came out from Jerusalem, and that they are descendants of the Jews. (2 Nephi 30:4)
The Jews? According to 2 Nephi 3:4, they were descendants of Joseph who was carried captive into Egypt. The Jews are descended from Judah (and Benjamin). In their "patriarchal blessings" Mormon patriarchs typically assign American Indians to the tribe of Manasseh (a son of Joseph), never to the tribe of Judah. A few blunders here, a few there. So what? Nothing that battle-scarred Mormon apologists can't explain away.
Many times more daylight in one day (in the Land of Bountiful, up to at least 100 hours, twice — 3 Nephi, chapters 9 to 28) than when the sun stood still upon Gibeon (Joshua 10:12-13).
Numerous undiscovered ancient American inscriptions in Hebrew, Chaldaic, Assyriac, Arabic and Reformed Egyptian.
The Rosetta stone. Discovered in 1799 near the mouth of the Nile River. The Greek and Egyptian texts on it were translated and made public by Jean François Champollion in 1822.
Think about it! Had this not happened when it did, undiscovered Reformed Egyptian engravings would never have been inscribed in stone and cement throughout the Western Hemisphere.
A sealed book. Written by Joseph Smith in characters copied from the gold plates, it was given to Martin Harris for presentation to Professor Charles Anthon in astounding fulfillment of Isaiah 29:11-12.
And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed. And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee; and he saith, I am not learned.
Quickie tense quiz: "And the vision of all is..." Indicate the tense of the verb.
a) future
b) future perfect
c) present indicative
Quickie syntax quiz: Which of the following accurately translate the original Hebrew?
a) palabras (plural) de libro (singular) sellado, el cual (singular)
b) die Worte (plural) eines versiegelten Buches (singular), welches (singular)
c) the words of a book that is sealed, which (ambiguous) Figure it out yourself. What's delivered in both instances? "Words" or "a book"?
The King James scholars unprofessionally declined to make a perfectly clear passive voice translation: "the words of a book that is sealed, which is delivered," not "which are delivered." Ask yourself why the learned one would get only words whereas the unlearned one would get a book? Smith very undiscerningly misconstrued the "which" and had Martin Harris deliver a fictitious transcription of "words" which defy identification as a book or even a booklet or pamphlet. Further, though a simple farmer, an adventurous opportunist and a willing dupe, no way can Martin be passed off as a "deliverymen." Moroni was an angel, not a man. Heartfelt thanks are definitely owed the alert editor who first saw the need to italicize "men," eliminating thereby a potential source of confusion and conjecture!
Quickie sequence quiz: The sealed book is delivered first to
a) one that is not learned
b) one that is learned
c) men.
By a provident twist of luck the "book" (which the transcription had to be in order to fulfill Isaiahs' words) wasn't sealed at all—not even symbolically—and with utter contempt for the "cannot," Anthon accommodatingly read the part in Egyptian and identified the non-Egyptian characters. He that was not learned—supposedly Joseph Smith—had not only read at least part of what he copied but translated it. Harris himself, a native speaker of English and no dummy, had no doubt read the translation too and it must have made as much sense to him as to Anthon.
A sealed part of a book.
[Anthon said] that if I would bring the plates to him he would translate them. I informed him that part of the plates were sealed, and that I was forbidden to bring them. He replied, 'I cannot read a sealed book.' (Joseph Smith 2:65) Talk about putting words in people's mouths! Anthon couldn't read any book or any part of a book, sealed or unsealed, unless allowed to see it. If you are of an experimental bent, you try it! Why insist that Anthon said these exact words? In order to exactly fulfill Isaiah 29:11-12, which, sad to say, is not a prophecy. What a comedown to those who, having lied about this, have relied on it as a selling point for their holy fiction! Correction: Unholy fiction.
So what was this all about? Was Harris (whose words convey belief in the existence of the gold plates—or at least a disposition to believe in them) so unimpressed by what had been translated from a sacred record delivered by an angel from heaven that, along with Joseph, he felt that "the people of Palmyra" needed an expert opinion to convince them of the truth of the gold plates story? Could Smith's familiarity with Isaiah 29:11-12 have sparked in him an idea for faked fulfillment of what he took to be a prophecy? Clearly, however, it is not one at all but an admonitory parable aimed not at Smith's U.S.A. or the world of his day but at prophets, rulers and seers back in Isaiah's day, in Israel.
Familiar spirits and voices from the dust.
And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust. (Isaiah 29:4)
A key Hebrew word in this scripture, pronounced OV or OB, means a necromancer (communicator with the dead by witchcraft), not the familiar spirit of the King James translation—so dear to Mormons in their willful misinterpretation of this—which won't work in non-English speaking lands where translations such as spectre (specter, ghost), spettro (phantom, ghost), feiticeiro (magician, sorcerer, witchdoctor), fantasma (phantom, ghost, apparition) and Zauberer (magician, sorcerer) accurately reflect the meaning of the original Hebrew.
The perverse impertinence ascribing "voice from the dust" to the Book of Mormon is offensive not only to Jews and Messiahns but to all possessed of ordinary common sense, a totally unsupportable, laughable stretch so distorted that in his heavenly abode it made Isaiah throw up his nectar and ambrosia in disgust and dismay. "thou shalt be brought down" refers exclusively to Jerusalem and nowhere else on earth.
Latter-day Saints have been so enamored with their misinterpretation of "familiar spirit" that a presiding bishop (Legrand Richards) authored a book called A Marvelous Work and a Wonder in which he makes much of the "familiar spirit" misconception. Oh, yes! The Book of Mormon does indeed touch us in a familiar spirit way; i.e., a ghostly-spectral- necromancer-witch doctor-sorcerer sensation and impression.
Caution and Restraint—attributes amply accorded by God but spurned by Mormon explicators as they misappropriate two of the verses preceding the above passage and attempt to twist them to their advantage. Literal meaning of Ariel: hearth or altar of burnt offerings to God. Poetic usage: Jerusalem.
Woe to Ariel, to Ariel, the city where David dwelt! Add ye year to year; let them kill sacrifices. Yet I will distress Ariel, and there shall be heaviness and sorrow: and it* shall be unto me as an** Ariel. (Isaiah 29:1-2)
*Languages which employ morphological gender make the relationship between "it" and its antecedent "Ariel" perfectly unmistakable through feminine or masculine forms. French substitutes "the city" (et la ville sera pour moi un Ariel). German employs masculine forms plus adding an adjective that may be translated as proper, true, genuine: ...und er soll mir ein rechter Ariel sein. (And "he" shall be to me a proper altar.) In German all nouns are capitalized.
**Hebrew has no indefinite article but in many other languages one must be added in translating this, as can be noted in present-day French and Italian versions, for example, and at least one in English.
God, speaking through Isaiah, is referring to himself (it shall be unto me, God). The explicators seize on me as meaning the Nephite nation, which would be attacked and distressed like Jerusalem. No way! This is a beautiful play on the poetic and literal meanings of Ariel. It (Ariel; i.e. Jerusalem) will suffer severely but shall remain as an altar unto me, God, treasured and loved, and her enemies will be visited by me with disasters.
Also, Hebrew has no capital letters so no distinction of the sort common to many other languages is made between ariel (city) and ariel (altar hearth). The proper interpretation of "it," a perfectly clear reference to Jerusalem, chucks into the garbage Mormon explicators' strange notion that an amorphous "it" refers to "the situation," "things." Things will be with me (Zarahemla or the Nephite nation) as Jerusalem. This hogwash won't wash. Hebrew has no pronoun usage comparable to that of English "it" in this passage. To achieve what Mormons are claiming, verbal expressions like this would be required: "my fate will be the same as Ariel's," "what befalls Ariel will also befall me."
Caractors. The title of the above book, "which may be* the original paper carried by Martin Harris to show Charles Anthon," according to Mormon scholars. ("What Did Charles Anthon Really Say," Reexploring the Book of Mormon, p. 76) Of course no sealed or unsealed gold plates were delivered to the learned Anthon nor anything else that might in any sense be called a book (or even a readable excerpt from a book) so this whole fabrication is more than faintly ridiculous.
*"may be..." Take note of the apologists' sorry stab at leaving themselves a minimally loopy loophole here. They had to be aware (they're scholars) of the unsettling fact that the "Caractors" are amateurishly faked and foolishly fraudulent. Truly unsettling is the fact that Latter-day Saints are thought to have high standards of probity and honesty to uphold. Read this, from p. 75 of the aforementioned publication:
Caught on the horns of a dilemma, and having unwittingly fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 29, Anthon took the easy way out: He tore up the statement he had innocently given to Harris and denied Harris's story. Today Anthon's cover-up appears more blatant than ever.
Aha! All doubt has been removed. No buts or maybes about it! These thankfully preserved "Caractors" definitely are what Anthon saw and he truly believed, as do these prominent, indefatigable L.D.S. scholars, that the "Caractors" were exactly what he supposedly claimed. Has a blatant pretense of scholarship stumbled all over itself here?
Think about it. The "Caractors" are the only extant tangible bit of evidence related to Smith's story still accessible to us today. No gold plates, no brass plates, no peep stones, no Urim and Thummim... only these "Caractors," not a single one of which is in the purported languages.
Smith's translation of the Caractors. According to Martin Harris (Joseph Smith - History, 1:64), "I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated,* and he said they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters."
Speak right up now in all truthfulness. Isn't it revealing how Smith started out making a stab at creating believable "caractors" but quckly gave up and produced nothing but squiggles, ending up with a series of nothing more than crude little scribbles? Yet Professor Anthon supposedly translated them. The man must have been an all-time world-class genius!
*Harris must have had two or three pieces of paper with him—one with characters and a translation of them (on the same paper or a separate one) and one with untranslated characters—quite likely the "Caractors." Some Mormon "scholars" have gone out on a limb, sawed it off, and knocked themselves out trying to translate from these true Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic characters a segment that would correspond with a verse from 1 Nephi.
Modern-day experts in Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic. In 1829, any knowledge of these languages possessed by U.S. scholars would have been rudimentary at best. Expertise in them has vastly improved since then. So go ahead, do it. Get any modern expert in these languages to identify which of these "Caractors" are Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac and Arabic. Better still, accept the claim of Mormon apologists that Anthon did indeed so testify and that his appraisal of the Caractors was correct. (Op. cit, pp. 73-75)
Save your money! Samples of Assyriac/Aramaic and Arabic writing:
What say you? Which of Smith's "Caractors" resemble the Assyriac and Arabic ones? No need to pay experts for their analysis. A child could accurately check this out. These writing systems have remained constant for well over 3000 years.
Apparently God has failed us here. (No blasphemy intended.) How did "the translation thereof" get lost? Why didn't Smith safeguard it—make multiple copies—so that we could readily find this text from the gold plates in every edition of The Book of Mormon ever published?
The "Caractors" supposedly are random, non-contiguous characters copied form the gold plates. Nonetheless, inasmuch as most of them would have to be in "Reformed Egyptian," present-day scholars should be able to translate them much more easily than Anthon. Locating the translated words in The Book of Mormon could then be accomplished by simply finding them in the exhaustive Book of Mormon INDEX. Go for it, ye great Egyptologists!
Strangely, from Nephi to Moroni, not one single scribe mentions Chaldaic, Assyriac or Arabic, so how account for the inclusion of these among the "Caractors"? Hmmm. Are we faced here with Reformed Chaldaic, Reformed Assyriac and Reformed Arabic? "None other people knoweth our language; therefore [the Lord] hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof." (Mormon 9:34) Shouldn't that have read "knoweth our languages"?
Amazing that the "Reformed Egyptian" of Champollion and that of the Book of Mormon ended up being so similar that, according to Martin Harris, Anthon could promptly verify that Smith's translation was correct. And without the Urim and Thummim! No problem. None other people knoweth our language except for Champollion, Charles Anthon and other learned scholars like him—all of them without access to Smith's magical peep stones or any need for them.
If Smith was at all consistent, wouldn't he know that of all earth's inhabitants he alone, thanks to the Urim and Thummim, could translate caractors in language(s) that none other people knoweth? Nonetheless, Anthon was Smith's ticket to supposed fulfillment of Isaiah's non-prophecy, so he disregarded all obvious, logical implications. Devout true blue Mormons: Take a second to objectively, dispassionately, honestly think of this. Has the world ever witnessed a more mixed-up, messed-up ridiculous farce?
Cut throats. The authors of "What did Charles Anthon Really Say" have cleverly cut their own thoats. "In 1834," they write, "Professor Charles Anthon vehemently denied that he told Martin Harris that the Book of Mormon characters resembled Egyptian. ...having unwittingly fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 29, Anthon took the easy way out: He tore up the statement he had innocently given to Harris and denied Harris's story. Today Anthon's cover-up appears more blatant than ever." (Reexploring the Book of Mormon, p. 75)
Well, thank you, Mormon apologists. Now the rest of us can join in your excitement to know that in addition to Egyptian and Hebrew, Ancient Americans knew and used Chaldaic, Assyriac and Arabic too. A pity that over a period of 1000 years all of these languages were written exclusively on perishable materials. However, impressive numbers of engravings on stone, gold, brass and tumbaga alloy (gold and copper) indubitably will be discovered no later than a week or so before the Millennium. (The Mayans—ancient America's only fully literate people—left records engraved on stone and other materials that are totally unrelated to Near Eastern writing systems. Nonetheless, because of their literacy, Mormon scholars tend to locate Book of Mormon events in Maya territory.)
Actually, Chaldaic and Assyriac are two names for one language. The best-known version of it is Aramaic, spoken by the Babylonians at the time of the captivity and by the Jews after their return. Aramaic and Hebrew are closely related Semitic languages. Jesus, of course, knew Hebrew (the language of the Law and the Prophets) as well as Aramaic (used in everyday speech). Talitha cumi (Damsel, I say uno thee, arise — Mark 5:38-42) is Aramaic. Quite possibly the 12-year-old little girl didn't know Hebrew.
O.K., LDS scholars, did Lehi and company leave for the land of Jerusalem before or after the Babylonian captivity?
Why, before, of course!
Where did the Jews learn to speak Aramaic as a common language?
Well, naturally, in Babylon. Where else?
Then how come Lehi and his descendants were using this language in America? And where did they pick up Arabic? Be honest and admit that this "Caractors" story couldn't be more incriminating and damning. Be honorable. Be ethical and forthcoming! Doesn't your religion constantly teach and preach this? Aren't you supposed to be a light and an example to the world? Live up to your thirteenth Article of Faith: "We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men..."
Didn't anyone realize the potential value, as a collectible, of the paper on which Smith had translated an Egyptian text from the Book of Mormon? It would be worth at least a million. How come Mark Hofmann, the celebrated forger of Mormon documents, didn't forge this one?
A new concept. The gold plates remained safely in Joseph Smith's hands until when, according to arrangements, the messenger [Moroni] called for them (Joseph Smith—1:60). Those gold plates, it seems, have been taken to heaven despite the general consensus that there is no place in celestial spheres for terrestrial things. Inasmuch as these incredibly valuable plates, unlike the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. are not available for examination and research, thank God that we at least have this "book," these Caractors, copied from them to breathlessly, reverently contemplate and analyze.
Would the gold they were engraved on make the plates sacred? Too sacred to be viewed except through angelic intervention? A find as spectacular as this should have been announced enthusiastically to the press, and scientists should have been invited to examine the fabulous plates. To properly get his amazing story out to the whole wide world, II Nephi surely would have insisted on this.
What a pitiful public relations man Moroni turned out to be for his fantastic people! What a lousy job he did! If God really wanted the world to know the words of the book, would it have been surrounded by such elaborate, peculiar secrecy and mystery? No. Instead, a farmer, for example, could have been caused to stumble upon it and immediately report his discovery to competent authorities. The publicity the gold plates would have received world-wide would have far, far surpassed that accorded the Dead Sea Scrolls. The stupid notion of non-professional "witnesses" who spoke only English would be what it is: a no-brainer. Linguists everywhere could confirm and corroborate the accuracy of all attempts at translation. Why not by Prof. Anthon—or by Champollion himself? Thankfully, God has endowed us with brains, and as the apostle James stated, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." (James 1:5)
You are forgetting that in this life we are supposed to live by faith.
Take leave of our senses and have faith in false prophets, lies, deceit, hoaxes and scams?
Eyes and brains. Use your own eyes and brains to check out the Anthon story. Examine the enlarged photo of the Rosetta stone hieroglyphics and see if you can find any characters resembling those in the Caractors "book." Anthon had no photo of the stone, of course, and, as far as is known only a copy of Champollion's Preçis du système hieroglyphique des anciens Ègyptiens, the reading of which would hardly qualify him to be a professional Egyptologist in a new field of endeavor just barely getting underway.
Reformed Egyptian. Was it already reformed when Lehi left Jerusalem (600 B.C.)? The Rosetta Stone contains a decree issued in 196 B.C. engraved in hieratic, demotic and Greek. Hieratic co-existed with the older heiroglyphics (sacred carvings) and was employed until 200 B.C. Around 600 B.C. demotic began to replace hieratic as a vehicle for non-sacred writings. All three scripts were used in Egypt over a period of 3,000 years (only part of that time concurrently). Spoken Egyptian evolved into what is known as Coptic. From Coptic, linguists have been able to deduce to some extent the phonetic values of the hieratic and demotic characters, evaluated in recent scholarly work as similar to different fonts of the same writing system.
In 600 B.C. Lehi et al. would have used hieratic. Writing systems are revised or reformed very rarely. Speech is always changing over time and space, yet we Americans can still understand Chaucer and Shakespeare rather well in writing and comprehend our friends the Brits, Australians, etc. tolerably well in speech and quite well in writing. Therefore, it is surprising to read that Mosiah "caused that [the people of Zarahemla, the Mulekites] be taught in his language" since neither he nor his people could understand them (Omni 17-18), even though the Mulekites had come from Jerusalem only some 300 years later, during which time the spoken language would not have changed all that much. Joseph Smith appears to have known that glottochronology impinges on the credibility of his entire story and this may account for the insertion of an episode which nonetheless is totally unbelievable.
According to Mormon, "...we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech" (Mormon 9:32). Linguistically speaking, this statement is totally unobjectionable and the altering or reforming referred to would have occurred in the western hemisphere over a period of about 1000 years (600 B.C. to 400 A.D.)
The brass plates of Laban, which span the period from Adam to the commencement of the reign of King Zedekiah (597 B.C.) and are the basis for the language of the Book of Mormon (Mosiah 1:4), would have to be in older hieroglyphics or hieratic, not demotic, a common everyday secular script used for business, etc. The authors referred to above claim that the terms "tachygraphie" and "shorthand Egyptian" employed by Champollion and Anthon (in their opinion exact equivalents of the characterization "reformed") prove that the latter's appraisal of the Caractors was correct and his statement to Harris true.
Applying the term "reformed" to Mormon's abridgement and Moroni's words could make sense (with a period of about 900 years represented during which a supposed reformation could take place), but not at all as applied to the language of 1 and 2 Nephi (engraved before 545 B.C.). The Caractors were "drawn" from those Smith had just "commenced copying"; i.e., from the early period between 600 and 545 B.C. Hieratic—not "shorthand" demotic—was employed for sacred non-secular texts from as early as 2925 B.C. down to about 200 B.C., so Smith has once again hoisted himself and others (including the authors of Reexploring the Book of Mormon) on one of his many petards.
A willing collaborator. Convinced of the veracity of Joseph Smith's story about the gold plates—fully corroborated, as he believed, by Charles Anthon—Martin Harris mortgaged his farm to finance the publication of the Book of Mormon
The only pertinent tangible, viewable, examinable item. No gold plates. No urim and thummim. No peepstones. Nothing whatsoever... Nothing at all to put your finger on... except for the "Caractors." How surprising, therefore, that Mormon apologists have failed to rest their case on them as tangible, irrefutable proof of the existence of plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated to King James English. A review of related symposium topics and writings reveals that this great opportunity has had no takers. The reason for this couldn't be more obvious. The "Caractors" provide the clearest, most evident, certain proof that the whole story is fraudulent, a scam, a pack of lies. The "Caractors" are in the possession of the Community of Christ (formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and many certifiably accurate copies of them have been made.
Urim and Dumbim.
Joseph Smith's Urim and Thummim obviously was a very imperfect instrument, compelling L.D.S. revisers in chief to revise revision after revision in order to conform Book of Mormon doctrine with facts and elementary concepts of God's unvarying righteousness and fairness. How Native Americans must be heaving a collective sigh of relief to know that God didn't curse those among them who actually are Lamanites* to have "skins of blackness" and be "filthy and loathsome" but merely to be impure! (Good grief! They had no God-given free will or choice in the matter? What a concept of Deity for these Mormons to acquiesce in and subscribe to!) Now, thanks to recent revisions, they can look forward to becoming "pure and delightsome" again (or in one revision "pure white" and delighted).
*Not many of them at all, L.D.S. apologists now are saying, given negative DNA results and the evidence of physiognomy and skin coloration apparent to the dimmest of eyes. Not the tiniest white whit of an admixture of Israelite pigments to their skins can be detected. And actual Lamanites didn't multiply over the face of the whole earth, they now affirm, but only a small area south of the Great Lakes.
Revisions have become so numerous (many of them far from being trivial) that a revision of L.D.S. Article of Faith No. 8 must be revised to read "we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly."
To justify why Laman and Lemuel's "seed," including innocent little children, were cursed with the same sore curse as their progenitors, L.D.S. Article of Faith No. 2 must be revised to read "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression. We further believe that Native Americans will be punished for their own sins, and have been and will continue to be punished for Laman's and Lemuel's transgression, even with the sore cursing of skins of blackness and to be loathsome."
"These changes won't change anything. At most they will produce barely a ripple." (Quoted from Jan Schip's comment on ever greater textual revisions by L.D.S. revisers in chief.) Devastating tidal waves of irrefutable evidence smashing and crashing against Mormonism's fictions obviously will touch thick L.D.S. skins with less impact than one drop of water on Joseph Smith's cast bronze head at Temple Square..
Total annihilation of the fair and delightsome. The world's most horrible instance of genocide. Every single one of them killed in the great Cumorah battle except for Moroni. The San Blas Indians don't count. Those among them too hastily deemed to be white Nephites are albinos, with typically pale skin and pink eyes.
The scattering of the Jewish people, dark, filthy and loathsome beyond description—even more so than the Lamanites—in astounding, breathtaking conformity with and faith- promoting fulfillment of precious words engraved by a prophet of the Lord on gold plates around 380 A.D. in what is now upstate New York.
And behold, they shall go unto the unbelieving of the Jews;—that they may be persuaded that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God; that the Father may bring about, through his most Beloved, his great and eternal purpose, in restoring the Jews, or all the house of Israel, to the land of their inheritance, given them, unto the fulfilling of his covenant;
And also that the seed of this people may more fully believe his gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles; for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites, and this because of their unbelief and idolatry. (Mormon 5:14-15) The truth: The Jews were the only non-pagan people on earth—far more righteous than others, and the only people among whom the Messiah could do the Father's will and fulfill his mission. How we must constantly honor and love them for that! Those who fight against them (with words as well as weapons) shall perish.
Innumerable great Jewish men and women—from times long past right up to the present day—spiritual leaders, teachers, physicians, poets, philosophers, builders, musicians, novelists, journalists, artists, statesmen, stateswomen, scientists, historians, economists, philanthropists, movie stars, engineers, comedians, cartoonists, inventors, generals, admirals, buck privates... on and on and on, plus your next door neighbors and their bright, adorable little children... How could any half-way respectable, intelligent person believe that the evil, vicious, hideous words "dark, filthy and loathsome beyond description" could emanate from a divine source, the God of love—supposedly lovingly inscribed for his children's edification on holy gold plates?
Dawning realizations. Decent, honorable, fair-minded people begin to sense—olfactorily if not optically—that the source of these evil, vicious, hideous words must be none other than the febrile brain of a dark, filthy, loathsome false prophet.
A U.S. Army infantryman, 103rd Division, who in World War II helped liberate the six horrible concentration camps ringing Landsberg and was stationed at war's end at the horrendous one at Dachau—horrified by the fact that otherwise decent people actually accept these evil, filthy, loathsome words as holy scripture, the divinely revealed word of God. This infantryman will defend, protect, champion, speak up for, and honor these unjustly, criminally oppressed people till the day he dies!
Photos from Report After Action: The Story of the 103rd Infantry Division
A marvelous work and a wonder. In an unspeakably pernicious usurpation, added to all the persecution to which they've been subjected, the Jews have had their Zion expropriated. Mormons have not only filched it as a symbol but even as a place. There are two Zions, you know: Jerusalem's Mount Zion and the Zion in Independence, MO (or for now, Salt Lake City, UT) and—in a broad sense—what Mormons are busily building up.
They have even tried to heist the marvelous work and a wonder (Isaiah 29:14) that pertains exclusively to THIS PEOPLE, the Jews. And what a marvelous work and wonder it is! Incredible! There is now a state of Israel, threatened on all sides by murderous fanatics and yet persevering, surviving against all odds. At times all nations (all people, in some versions) have seemed gathered together against her. (Zechariah 12:2,3. The United Nations = "all nations"?) The desert has blossomed as the rose. Jerusalem and the Jews are an ariel, God's cherished altar, the only non-pagan people on earth among whom the Messiah could fulfill his mission and to whom He will return in glory... and those who fight against them shall perish.
Strange that Smith could have been unaware of biblical parallelism in the form of synonymous repetition imparting emphasis, yet he brazenly "revealed" that Zion and Jerusalem are two different places, whereas this is but one among many examples of this common biblical poetic device. In Micah 4:2,* for example, Micah obviously isn't saying that the word of the Lord shall go forth from Jerusalem and the law from Salt Lake City, Independence, Missouri or any other equally ridiculous place. How weird to think otherwise! Both shall go forth from Jerusalem.
*Mount Zion is the highest point in the city of Jerusalem. "For the people will dwell in Zion at Jerusalem. You will weep no more. He will surely be gracious to you at the voice of your cry." (Isaiah 30:19)
"Zion" and "Jerusalem" are identical terms geographically. Micah 4:2 is illustrative of the common Biblical use of synonymous parallelism.
And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord [Mount Zion], and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we shall walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and word of the Lord from Jerusalem. The fact that "Zion" and "Jerusalem" denote the same place couldn't be more obvious.
What law was supposed to go forth from Independence, MO/Salt Lake City, UT? The Ten Commandments? The Beatitudes? The Law of Celestial Sealings and Polygamy? The law to unite with the only true and living church and pay tithing to its presiding authorities or get the dust from the feet of the Elders of Israel* shaken on you (Doctrine and Covenants 60:15, 75:20) and burn at the Lord's coming (D&C 65:3, 85:3)?
Legrand Richards, former Presiding Bishop of the L.D.S. Church actually wrote a book called A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, in which his demented disrespect for correct interpretation of plainly understood words and for God's chosen people is on disgraceful display.
*Israel: Also peremptorily hijacked by Mormons (as well as others), with no deference or consideration for God's biblical, covenant Israel and Israelites. Adding injury to insult, these "adopted" Israelites have subjected the true ones to ungodly discrimination and persecution as well as unspeakable vilification and defamation. Click to read an atrocious, horrendously abominable "scripture" and a soldier's fierce, unwavering defense of these marvelous, admirable, incredibly resilient, long-suffering people.
Two stones for seers (literally, see-ers). Far surpassing the biblical Urim and Thummim (not simply responding yes or no to inquiries posed), they enable perfect translations to or from any language. With enviable consistency and verve, Smith outdoes the Bible again!
A blanket. It curtained off Smith's gold plates and his Urs and Thumms (Hebrew <im> is a plural morpheme equivalent to English <s>) as Smith dictated his "interesting account" (in the words of Oliver Cowdery) so that no one could see exactly what he was doing and what he might have had hidden behind there—perchance some gold plates, some Urs and Thumms or some notes or pages of a manuscript?
A translation by the gift and power of God, "for his voice hath declared it unto us" (from The Testimony of Three Witnesses). If it hadn't been for that nuisance of a blanket, Oliver Cowdery could have been the perfect Witness—no need for him to be numbered with the other two as a participant in a supernatural manifestation. He could have seen the gold plates and the Urs and Thumms day after day (not just the one time when he tried to translate them) and could have provided any number of details that would have proved Smith's tale was true, for seeing is believing. Of course gold, in the form of plates, is far too holy and sacred for humans other than a prophet to look upon unless laid before their eyes by an angel of God come down from heaven. Scholars like Professor Charles Anthon.... quite unqualified.
Safety for the wise and wary. "Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive." How tangled can webs get? Smith entangled many who could be classed among the very elect. (Matthew 24:24) Be wise. Be wary. Be safe. If this sticky, icky, deceitful web has entangled you, break loose from it with courage and a keen sense of your sacred intellectual and moral independence, value, and worth.
Native Americans with Semitic DNA. Somehow God has failed Mormons here by not producing the slightest trace of it for them.
Monte Verde. This archeological dig in Chile has established the first peopling of the New World at 13,000 B.C., somewhat far in advance of the Jaredites and Lehites.
The appearance of the Lamb and 144,000 on Mount Zion (Revelations 14:1-6) prior to the coming of an angel flying in the midst of heaven—the Angel Moroni, according to Mormons. He appeared to Joseph Smith alone in 1829 and didn't fly in the midst of heaven saying the prophesied words in a loud voice.
And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. (Revelation 14:1)
And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue and people,
Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. (Revelation 14:6)
Heavily guarded walls and barred gates under, over or through which Nephi must "creep" at night but simply "goes forth" from shortly thereafter in order not to unduly arouse Zoram's and readers' consternation, perplexity and suspicions. (1 Nephi 4:5,27) No harlot like Rahab required. (Joshua 2:1-15) See An Approach to the Book of Mormon by Hugh Nibley, pp. 79-101 for a description of how dangerous the times were and how alertly and well defended Jerusalem was. A great defender of the Book of Mormon, Dr. Nibley unwittingly (well, perhaps with half a wit) blows the credibility and verisimilitude of this story of Nephi's dangerous "escapade" all to pieces.
A helpless drunk harming no one. Why murder and steal, breaking the sixth and eighth commandments? Why not give Laban a good knock on the gourd with the hilt of his sword rather than brutally chopping off his block and getting blood all over the garments and armor, "every whit" of which Nephi was about to put on?
How come Lehi, a wealthy, righteous prophet, had no scriptures, whereas an evidently crass, godless Laban did? Makes not one whit of sense. But then the world would have been denied a famous scripture: "It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief." (1 Nephi 4:13-19) Oh, yeah, great, but there was no need for Laban to perish and the Nephite nation dwindled and perished anyway. Had to. From the earliest conception of his book Smith knew (What a surprise!) that not one single exceeding white and delightsome one would survive to welcome Columbus and all.
Large wooden 600 B.C. keys conspicuously carried around town at night on a servant's shoulders (1 Nephi 4:20. Cf. Isaiah 22:22. "And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder." Also, see any history of locks and keys.) Nothing peculiar about that. Ordered in the dead of night by his dead-drunk master to unlock some doors, the servant Zoram apparently was headed for several which only he could open up... having been contacted somehow by individuals who had misplaced their big blocks of wood? Possibly Zoram was so attached to those large unwieldy things that... No door to open for someone? So what? Carrying two or three of them around on his shoulders at night with nothing else to do was no bother, so so what?
Every whit of Laban's voice and Zoram's appearance. Humans are amazingly gifted at vocal recognition. Without benefit of caller ID we can recognize many voices over imperfect telephone connections. So what an accomplished mimic Nephi was, to pass himself off as Laban to the servant Zoram. Nephi had been to Laban's house just once and there is no indication in 1 Nephi that he had ever seen Zoram before. Laban was a mighty man in command of fifty fighting men and doubtless had numerous servants, so how was it that in the dark of night Nephi could even see, let alone recognize, this one? How did he know that this Zoram, among all of Laban's servants, was the keeper of the keys to Laban's treasury? Startled and shaking with apprehension from this one chance in a million encounter with someone he took to be his master (alone, with no torches and no bodyguard), a real servant would have expected a real Laban to jump all over him, shouting, "What the hell do you think you're doing here this time of night with those keys on your shoulders?"
Joseph Smith should have stuck to writing ranting sermons and refrained from attempting historical fiction. Unlike gifted authors of historical novels like Wilbur Smith (River God) and Edward Rutherfurd (Sarum), whose work can withstand the scrutiny of the best experts in the historical periods depicted, there are so many huge holes in Smith's story any amateur could drive a Mack truck through them.
An unguarded treasury not safely within a walled compound. There is archeological evidence that in ancient Palestine treasures were kept in temples and private houses but no separate stand-alone private treasuries have been discovered. If such a thing existed, how far would it have been from the possessor's house? (1 Nephi 4:20-24)
An unsuspicious meeting in the dark of night with supposed "brethren of the church" outside Jerusalem's walls. (1 Nephi 4: 27) Who would not expect to find facilities beyond the walls equal or superior to anything available within them plus a few stray rays of starlight or moonlight for the brethren to read those brass plates by, so what in the world could be surprising or unusual about that?
The term church and what it first expressed (assembly of baptized disciples, as well as a meeting place) had its origin in early Messiahnity.* (See note below) Old Testament kahal (an assembly) was displaced early on by Greek kyriake (belonging to the Lord) from which English church is derived. Synagogues (not so-called at the time, because synagogue derives from Greek, not Hebrew) had their origin during the Babylonian captivity—after Lehi left Jerusalem.
The word synagogue occurs in The Book of Mormon five times after 600 B.C. Not surprising that these New World Israelites should come up with new things long before those in the Old. The Urim and Thummim apparently suggested this Greek word to Smith's mind in preference to Hebrew beit k'nesset (house of assembly), which would have given short shrift to any impertinent charges of anachronistic biblical mimicry.
Distinguishing brethren from brothers is possible only in English. No other language has such a thing. Unlike brethren, Hebrew achim has no biblical or religious connotation, so Zoram couldn't have been delightfully tricked by this clever wordplay way back then in Jerusalem. Non-English speaking readers of the Book of Mormon don't know they've missed out on a fine nuance to a cunning deception. Devout readers of English may relish it as added lustre to a brilliant resourceful subterfuge.... Inspired! "Brothers of the church" falls way too flat. But be they "brothers" or "brethren," it's a well-known fact that they love to study the scriptures in the great outdoors without artificial light in the dark of night.
One glorious scripture after another.
Behold, doth [the Lord God] cry unto any saying: Depart from me?
Behold, I say unto you, Nay; but he saith: Come unto me all ye ends of the earth...
Behold, hath he commanded any that they should depart out of the synagogues,
or out of the houses of worship: Behold, I say unto you, Nay. (2 Nephi 26:25-26)
Sophomorically standing up for God, Smith convincingly, tirelessly, heroically, argues the commonplace. But behold, anyone barely acquainted with Holy Writ—or with the vocabulary of a five-year-old—saith or will say or cry out unto you: Behold, lo, yea, verily, a certain Satan, the Devil, saith and commandeth to depart from God and synagogues—not God, as any number of blithering idiots apparently may suppose. What a gem! Thank you so much for enlightening us, Joseph! Thank you for that felicitous "depart out of" too, an inconcinnous construction to modern eyes and ears, but let us be fair. It goeth beyond no more than a few hundred whits from sounding authentically pseudo-biblical.
Wherefore... if their works have been filthiness, they must needs be filthy;
and if they be filthy it must needs be that they cannot dwell in the kingdom of God;
if so, the kingdom of God must be filthy also. But behold, I say unto you, the kingdom of God is not filthy. (1 Nephi 15:33-34)
Whoa! Wow! What a revelation! Thank you, Nephi... er... Joseph Smith... for this priceless information! Who would have suspected...? Who would have had the slightest inkling...? What stunning, flawless logic! And if their works have been lying, they must needs be liars. And if their works have been wackiness, they must needs be wacky!
How about that lordly, magisterial, unappellable "But behold, I say unto you"? Who but Joseph Smith, through the Book of Mormon, could so courageously say unto you (unto the whole world!) that contrary to common belief and definition, heaven, God's abode, is not filthy? Not even just some of the time and never entirely!
More filth and a startling disclosure: God doth not dwell in unholy temples!
And he doth not dwell in unholy temples; neither can filthiness or anything which is unclean be received into the kingdom of God; therefore I say unto you the time shall come, yea, and it shall be at the last day, that he who is filthy shall remain in his filthiness. (Alma 7:21)
Filth, filthy, and filthiness... Add them up: 1 Nephi 12:16, 1 Nephi 12: 23, 1 Nephi 15: 27, 1 Nephi 15: 33, 1 Nephi 15: 34, 2 Nephi 9:16, 2 Nephi 14:4, 2 Nephi 14:14, Jacob 3:3, Jacob 3:5, Jacob 3:9, Jacob 3:10, Enos 1:20, Mosiah 7:30, Mosiah 7:31, Alma 5:22, Alma 7:21, Alma 32:3, Mormon 5:15, Mormon 9:4, Mormon 9:14.
Zero filth/filthy/filthiness exists in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Our Master and Teacher, the Messiah, made no use of these malevolent words.
Frail, filthy humans. Laman is filthy, Lemuel is filthy, their wives are filthy, their children (infants or older, adorable, cute, good-natured, good-looking, bright, skilled, or otherwise) are filthy, the incautious who mix their seed with them are filthy, the Nephites denounced by Jacob are filthy, the daughers of Zion are filthy, those whose works are filthiness are filthy, he who is filthy is mired in filth and everlastingly filthy (yea, and it shall be at the last day), Native Americans are filthy, Jews are filthy.... A frenzied, venomous, wholesale flinging of filth.
"Filthy Jews" in the Book of Mormon as dark and loathsome as the Lamanites. Possessing no patience, no pity, no charity, no mercy for violently dispossessed and viciously persecuted fallible fellow mortals, Smith nonetheless was admirably even-handed and fair, despising and detesting his own Book of Mormon "remnants of Israel" and God's own chosen biblical Israelites equally.
Grand total times Smith dirties his rants with filth/filthy/filthiness: thirty-four.
Smith's compulsive manic obsession with filth cries out to be psychoanalyzed. What kind of sociopath was this man? Possibly not an anal, although the word itself emits a whiff of filth.
A New and Everlasting Covenant. Yes, Prophet Smith knew about filth. He stank of it.... compelled by God to take unto himself pubescent wives "for time and all eternity" and divinely forced into the filth of the abuse of minors by his New and Everlasting Covenant. Altogether he had 33 secret spouses, failing to fool his wounded wife Emma, however, with squirmy, verminous evasiveness which made him more the fool. Though huge on bare necessities (Bare with me, sweetie), he failed to provide homes, sustenance, clothes and covert or overt companionship for his extra wives (though what could a holy prophet obeying God's command have to hide and why limit himself to "quickies"?). In the exodus from Nauvoo one of them was left standing with a new-born baby in the snow. Another was only 14 years old.
Sealing several of these young things to himself for time and "all" eternity and exercising his full, exclusive conjugal rights, Smith then married them off to others either removed from the scene or too bedazzled by his divine calling to contest a true prophet's privileges. In addition to polygyny he triumphantly instituted polyandry.
The "Spirit" called young Elder Horace Whitney on a mission to disencumber the way to Smith's prey (Whitney's sister). God, Smith's prophetic vision—i.e., his eyesight—and an angel served as procurers for him. It was in these dalliances that the prophet and revelator fully established his credentials as a seer. (In colloquial language, a see 'er.) In one seduction, Smith declared that an angel with a drawn sword had stood over him and told him that unless polygamy was established he would forfeit his prophetic calling and his life. Faced with the responsibility for ending Smith's role as a prophet and possibly his life, honored to be chosen by a revered seer, the young girl acquiesced. Has anyone else in all history had an angel as handy dandy as Joe Smith's? For further info see Todd Compton's scrupulously documented book In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith.
Typical TBM (True Blue Mormon) responses to this.
So? The prophet Joseph Smith was a man. Men are imperfect.
Men are not perfect, it is true. But from his elevated prophetic perch he mucked up the good name of strong, honest, real men by dragging traditional standards for the same in the dirt (filthy dirt). Isn't a prophet supposed to be a cut above the rest of us? More righteous and pure? At the very least not a horny fornicator, adulterer and liar.
Imperfect though he might have been, he was a true prophet of God!
Holy hate mongering. Two more glorious scriptures, of which there is no lack. For I, Nephi, have not taught them many things concerning the manner of the Jews; for their works were works of darkness, and their doings were doings of abominations. (2 Nephi 2:25)
Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ—for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name*—should come among the Jews, among those who are the more wicked part of the world; and they shall crucify him—for thus it behooveth our God, and there is none other nation** on earth that would crucify their God. (2 Nephi 10:3)
*It should not be His name! He was and is the Messiah. He was not a Greek! His mission was not performed among the Greeks! What a travesty... So infamously anti-Jewish (anti-Semitic, many carefully say, supposing thereby not to be considered anti-Jewish)—the only non-pagan people on earth among whom His mission could be performed. How we should admire and honor them! I'll emphasize and repeat this till my dying breath.
**Note the word nation. Incited by chief priests, scribes and elders, a multitude constituting a very small portion of the population cried out "Crucify him!" It was the Romans and a consenting few—not the Jews or the nation of the Jews—who crucified the Lord.
The usual blanket condemnation! Innocent little babies, darling children, vivacious girls, boisterous boys, manly dependable men, constantly caring, forever loving mothers and grandmothers, and forsooth and yea, even the Jews' dogs (Somehow sounds familiar... Jew dogs?), all without exception are wicked and abominable (and filthy) and killers of their God!
Consider for a moment Nephi's use of the word "Jew." Back in 600 B.C. this term (Jew in English, Jude in German, judío in Spanish, etc. in today's languages) didn't exist in Hebrew, Reformed Egyptian or any other language on earth.
How about that dependable, handy-dandy angel? Smith could always rely on one to get him out of a fix. Well, for once, at least, Smith realized he'd committed an anachronism in his use of the Greek-derived word "Christ." Give him full credit for "in the last night." What could sound more scriptural than that?
Nineteenth Century English Terminology in Ancient America. Now don't go blaming this on Joseph Smith! It was Jacob who thus spake, a holy American prophet man of old. The Jacob who (Whew!) slipped up by calling the Messiah Christ when how could he possibly have known this way back around 545 B.C.? After all, though well-versed in Hebrew, Egyptian, etc., unlike the Urim and Thummim, Jacob knew no Anglicized Greek. Luckily, inasmuch as it was absolutely necessary for Hebrew-speaking Jacob to know this, the angel foresightedly peered into sixth century A.D. England and gave him Christ, translated from Hebrew mashiach (the anointed one, Messiah) and why not, for though Jacob could not have known it when the angel spake, the Greeks are the chosen people of the Lord.
Did the apostle Peter say, "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God"? Of course not! No way! Impossible! That would be totally weird! He said, "Thou art the Messiah..." No one alive during the Messiah's ministry on earth would have called him by Greek "Xristos." No Israelite would ever use Greek for this. How preposterous even to contemplate such an absurdity. He came as the Messiah and properly speaking his followers are Messiahns.
This is actually one more instance of the insidious, sometimes subtle, anti-semitism that pervades the world. Most present-day followers of the Messiah fail to understand that they are wild branches grafted into the olive tree. (See Romans 11:1-2,17 21)
I say then, Hath God cast away His people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people..." (Bold type added.)
And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he spare thee not. (Bold type added.)
This ex-soldier thanks the Lord every day for the Jews, our Savior's people. He thanks the Lord for the choice Jewish friends he has had, including three in his squad of ten in World War II. He was and still is so exuberant—despite the depth of the sorrow and anguish experienced—that his own 411th Infantry Regiment liberated the six concentration camps on the outskirts of Landsberg, Germany.
Messiah should be the Savior's preferred title, along with Yeshua, the accurate transliteration of his given name. Jesus Christ—profaned by cursing—should be replaced by Yeshua Messiah, and his followers should be called Messiahns. The softer syllables lend themselves much less to harsh, blasphemous cursing. The same sacred usage should apply to other languages, employing the closest phonetic equivalents possible. This angel was a regular handy dandy Johnny on the Spot, showing up exactly when Nephi, Jacob (or Smith) desperately needed him.
Few non-linguists realize that at one time the English letter J was pronounced as Y. Curiously, when this sound shift took place, the grapheme J was retained. So instead of the correct transliteration and pronunciation "Yeshua," "Jesus" came into common usage. Likewise, Hebrew Yahveh became Jehovah through a strange quirk of the King James translators of the Bible. Unimportant? Not to those who love the Lord with all their heart, soul, strength, and mind. Not to those who respect, admire, honor, and love the people of God's true olive tree and vine.
Unaware that he had slipped up and fallen on his prat with "Bible" (2 Nephi 29:3), from Greek ta biblia to hagia (sacred books), the word coined almost 800 years after Nephi's time for what eventually comprised the New Testament, Smith gave Nephi no help from an angel "in the last night" for this and additional flagrant anachronisms. If you haven't spotted these yet, give it a try for the first time in your life. Caution: Have no truck with monolingual angels not equipped with crystal balls.
The earliest compilation of the Jewish Tanakh (Old Testament canon) dates to around 450 B.C., at the very least 100 years after Lehi's time. So when he departed for the "promised land" nothing that could be called "a Bible" existed. A believably portrayed Nephi would have wondered what on earth God was talking about. His "predictions" comprise nine full chapters. He is not quoting God directly, verbatim, but speaking as "constrained by the spirit" (2 Nephi 28:1). So who needs an angel "in the last night" to explain totally unfamiliar words not part of a man's vocabulary when so constrained? Did the word "Tanakh" flash into his brain? "Torah"? Doesn't matter. The Urs and Thums could handle anything.
Subtitles to visions. Which city was Nazareth?
And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white. (1Nephi 11:13)
Joseph Smith had a thing for visions. In the "First Vision," words were spoken to him and recorded by him. The other visions must have had subtitles. "Vision" derives from Latin "vedere," which means "to see." If words are not spoken, how can what is seen be properly identified?
In this vision did the camera focus in on an anachronistic road sign welcoming visitors to Nazareth? A footnote in the Book of Mormon indicates "Between 600 and 592 B.C." as the date of this event.
The earliest archaeological evidence of the existence of this town dates to the Savior's day. Even if Nazareth had existed back then, Nephi, who was from Jerusalem, wouldn't have known of such a small village in the boondocks, so insignificant, that it was no doubt with considerable scorn that Pilate referred to the Lord as "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews."
"Virgen" is a curious word to employ. Otherwise, the Book of Mormon refers only to "maidens" and "women." Did the subtitles explicity state her condition as virginal? Smith had no need of subtitles, however. He knew his King James version of the Bible (with which Nephi also was very conversant) quite well. "Exceedingly fair and white" is the highest praise Smith could accord to anyone. Realistic portrayals of our Lord and of Mary depict them as typically tan-skinned Semites.
"Messiah" in ancient Hebrew or Egyptian hieroglyphics. Even esoteric forms of communication rely to some extent on speech. The word "language" derives from Latin lingua (tongue). All writing systems, including mathematical and chemical symbols, hieroglyphics, etc. are in their essence representations of speech. Lehi's "Hebrew" had an alphabetic writing system which would simplify vocalization (silent or aloud) of the graphic representation of "mashiach" (Messiah) but in 600 B.C. a corresponding Greek term couldn't exist. Egyptian hieroglyphics, reformed or unreformed, likewise could have no such representation. So how could "Messiah," in any form appear on the gold plates?
The only Messianic prophecy that employs the terminology "anointed one" occurs in the Book of Daniel 9:25-26. In English Bibles the Hebrew is transliterated to "Messiah." In other languages it isn't transliterated but translated as "anointed": in French, "oint," Italian, "unto," German "Gesalbte," for example. The Babylonian captivity occurred after Lehi had left Jerusalem—years before Daniel's prophecy was made and recorded!
Some Mormon apologists, confronted with many such problems, have stated that Joseph's "translation" came from direct inspiration (like his Inspired Translation of the Bible) obviating any need whatsoever for reliance on the gold plates. Why all the hullabaloo about having to hide them from enemies, the necessity for three witnesses and eight witnesses, etc., if this is so? And how come his "inspiration" in this case and others doesn't jibe with the facts?
Why have such a story, anyway, of gold plates so sacred they couldn't be examined like the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example? Why keep them secret, not reporting their existence to the proper authorities, who wouldn't dream of melting them down for the gold? Anyone would recognize that their value far exceeded that. Just imagine the great PR! Exactly what "Moroni" and "God" wanted! A sensational find like this would be published world-wide in a flash. Translation would be no problem, as Professor Anthon supposedly demonstrated with his translation of the "Caractors," with no aid from peep stones or the Urim and Thummim. This merits repeating, so it might sink in.
Did the Smith family own any part of the Hill Cumorah? If it was public land, the public had a right to the gold plates and the valuable—beyond the wildest imagination—Urim and Thummim Smith claimed were hidden away with them.
Another glorious scripture. (Did he moon them?) Behold, I take off my garments and I shake them before you. (2 Nephi 9:44)
Sounds totally biblical, jibes perfectly with the milieu from whence Lehi sallied forth. Hmmm. The courts have determined that anti-Mormons can shake sacred Mormon temple garments in the vicinity of Temple Square, but who gave Jacob the right to shake his before his children, their cousins (boys and girls), their parents, and his wife? But what a show! Encore! Encore!
"Do it again, Dad! Sorry we're such God-damned awful kids. Yes, yes! Please, Dad! Let us behold that again."
Women and children are probably brethren and people. Whoops! Nephi's brother Jacob addressed these words to "my beloved brethren." Was this generic "brethren"? Nephi clarifies this, so hold on, you feminists. Not only Nephi himself plus Sam, Joseph, Zoram, and other Nephite male sinners were edified by Jacob's removal and shaking of his garments and his stern, ranting rebuke, but also the mothers, daughters, sisters, and babies in pink! They too were beloved of Jacob. (Babies in pink? Begging pardon, but after a while Smith's anachronisms become contagious.)
Straight-thinkers that some of us men are.... speaking for myself only.... this man has always held that these fair ones, our wives, daughters and sisters, definitely are people. And believe it or not, adorable and wonderful as little toddlers (and even older children) are, they nonetheless are people and shouldn't be subjected, along with mothers and sisters, to flashing, mooning, disrobing and harsh, insensitive haranguing.
Affirmative Action. Feminists should have no complaints. After all, women are only women and yet three of them have names in the Book of Mormon: One white, exceeding fair and delightsome one, Lehi's wife Sariah, and two dark-skinned, loathsome Lamanitish ones, the "convert" Abish and the harlot Isabel. The Spanish name Isabel, very popular in Spain and elsewhere thanks to perhaps the most famous female ruler in history (Queen Isabel of Spain, who financially supported Columbus in his voyage of 1492), derives from biblical Elizabeth, which means "consecrated or devoted to God." Imagine that! Way back in America, centuries prior to this, "Elizabeth" had also given rise to "Isabel." How fantastic! A name as popular as that must have been exceeding common among the Indians that Christopher and his crews discovered in the New World.
Silks and linen. Now behold, one of those fair ones, Jacob's wife, was moaning, "Lo, doth he not realize how filthy his garments are? For behold, thirty 'n one years hath passed away since we put forth into the sea 'n were driven forth before the wind toward the promised land and, lo, it must needs be we hide our nakedness with the skins of wild beasts, for behold, fine silks 'n fine-twined linen a the sort Nephi hath viewed in his vision shall not lift us up in the pride a our eyes till the eighth year a the reign a the judges 'n no silkworms or flax or stuff like that hath yet been found, wherefore it must needs be if I be to maintain one whit a pride and dignity, Jacob must cease ranting away so flatulently about our wickedness 'n go forth and get me a fine skin a that Promised Land animal for which we have no name in Hebrew, Unreformed Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, Greek or Arabic, but for lack a a better word could be called a arieh [lion in Hebrew].
"And now behold Jacob (if thou musteth), who having been born in the wilderness hath no holey old garments from the land o' Jerusalem with lo, many years a odor a sanctity, wherefore it must needs be he shake that filthy, stinky old skin garment before us. Every last whit a Laban's garments—the hand-me-down Jacob got from Nephi—hath long been gone. Holy Moley! I see it must needs be I invent what I shall call shorts! Lawzy me! When was the last time Jake hath had a bath? O behold, yea, verily, and lo, many moons hath not yet passedth away he was civil, white, exceeding fair 'n delightsome!"
Lamanite contamination. "Mom, Mom! Speaketh thou not thus! Thou wouldst think he bein' a Lamanite thou talkin' like that. But hearken, Mom, we cain't be as bad as he saith. We ain't had nothin' t' do with them filthy, loathsome Lamanites since God cursed 'em with a skin a blackness so we'd keep away from 'em 'n stay undifiled 'n righchewous. But I really misseth my nature-lovingeth cousins Shadrach, Abednego, Tutankhamon, Assurbanibal, Tiglath, Farooq, Phaedra and Lachoneus.... An awesomely idoneous name for him, Mom, the signification thereof wich is Spartan, them first Greecian traders in the Land a Jeruslem.... 'n Squattin' Bull, the very first Native name for a baby in this land choice above all others. I 'specially miss Phaedra, so glowingly fair and delightsome. Now who 'm I be goin' a hafta marry, Mom? My prune-faced old first-cousin Aminadaba?
"Wow! I'd a liked to a seen their skin turn from white 'n fair 'n delightsomeous t' black. Happent all at once, I uhspose, afore they could contaminate us one weentsie whit. I spect they's all ready contaminatin' are pure Hebrew, Chaldaic, Assyriac, Arabic 'n Unreformed 'gyptian. Before, lo, many gin'rations hath passed away it'll come to pass we won't understand 'em no more 'n we could people from the Land a Jeruslem if they suddently appeared in this land choice above all others. They'll never give up are alph'betal writin' system, though, the very first one in all the world.... No more'n any lit'rate people ever gives up writin' cept t' have it achanged for a nothern as a risult a conquest 'n subyougation. If the Babylonans ever conquer the Jews in the land from whence we cometh 'n carry 'em off t' captiv'ty thou canst bet they won't achange are perfic alef-beth (wich some'll call the alphabet) for their cummersome cuneiform!"
A proclamation by Joseph Smith: "The Book of Mormon is the most correct book of any on earth" (History of the Church, vol. 4:461); consequently, horses are horses, sheep are sheep, lions are lions, silk is silk, linen is linen, wine is wine........ Unblinkingly assuring |
|
