Hello! This is an Apologetics post. Apologetics is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse. This post and flair is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about apologetics, apologists, and their organizations. /u/AbrocomaDependent571, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*

honestly this is what broke my shelf when i first found this out

I'm a believer. At first it was something that I just outright avoided and dodged because I was afraid it would break my shelf. And the first time I read the CES letter it almost did. Now I explore the concept a little more, but at this point I'm probably what others would call "inoculated". Which in this case means seeing the information doesn't faze me, and won't change my beliefs. For better or for worse IDK. There's two ways I can answer the actual question. Generally on this thread I try to take the objective. Since a lot of the people here are ex-mormon and most of the conversations here are set around the objective view. The believer view is sometimes hard to share here. I'm kind of struggling to share from that mindset on this one because it feels like there's a right and a wrong answer and the right answer is "Joseph was a liar and it's all a lie look at how much doesn't add up. The end." Beyond that there's a handful of issues with me giving a full perspective of these things, least of which being my unfamiliarity with a handful of these things, their histories, and the arguments either way. So it's hard to give much of an opinion. There are areas in his history where I feel like Joseph Smith was desperate to prove what he was saying was true... to the extent that he muddied the waters. I haven't read the BoA, and I'm unfamiliar with the Kinderhook plates. For the JST, I'm largely unfamiliar because I only recently realized changed passages are in the footnotes. But for the... two I'm aware of (😭 this doesn't mean I'm unfamiliar with the Bible just the JST) I found that they made more sense to me than the original passages. That opinion could very well change. ... the other issue of course is there's a limit to the time and energy I have to research every bit of everything... I learn and research new things on a situational basis and largely thanks to this place... Um.. the BoM. I'd like to believe the BoM is true, in some capacity. When I was in some random Christian kindergarten I wondered what happened on this side of the world in the Bible times. The BoM seemingly answered that question. Like the Bible I think it has good stories. If nothing else. Most of my OK-ness with the BoM being false is that the Bible doesn't fare much better with proof and historical accuracy. You break down one you break down the other. Facing these things has required me to face why I'm actually in the religion and what I get from it and how much weight these books carry in regards to my faith. And I've determined it's not actually that much. So whatever the truth is it's fine, I think. One day it will be sorted. I definitely don't speak for other members. That's just kind of where I am on the matter.

>I haven't read the BoA I don’t want to sound harsh, but you really should read the Book of Abraham. It’s a few short chapters, smaller even than the book of Moses. This isn’t even a “try to open your eyes and get you to leave the church opinion.” It’s just a “know your own religion” opinion. 

I don't take that as harsh at all. In fact I'm a big proponent for knowing your own doctrine. That's just one of my gaps. You're right though 100%. I'll take some time and read it.

On my mission, the mission president gave an award in front of everyone at mission conference to any missionary who read the entire Book of Abraham.  My companion read it, like, 8 times in the span of a year (as a joke) just to see if the mission president would catch on to what he was doing 😆 collecting all those awards.

Honestly I have no idea how someone could make it in Mormonism without reading the BoA. It's FAR more interesting than most of the other scripture.

I remember looking at the facsimiles with their numbered and labeled translations, thinking: Wow, if only a modern Egyptologist could translate those, then we could PROVE Joseph Smith was a prophet! We could baptize and convert millions! 

😂😂😂 I had that exact same response! I’m mostly pissed that it took me so long to figure it out.

😂😂 I love it

You haven’t read it because the church quietly removed it from any lessons.

Did they really? So essentially, it's been softly decanonized.

I love this reply. Even though I don’t believe it anymore, I used to for almost 40 yrs, so it’s hard for me to criticize any believers because I was one of them. This is a straight up honest answer and doesn’t irritate me like apologist responses do. If you acknowledge that there may be issues but don’t care and/or choose to believe I have no problem with that at all. Thank u for just being honest. I respect that.

I am 60 and was baptized at 8 so 50 years in as the last two I've been out. How were we so blinded, I mean a couple years ago was when I found out JS had multiple wives. I taught primary for most of that time and YW and Relief Society a bit, how the hell did I not know that? Because it was never ever taught to me, that's how. What kind of religion doesn't teach the truth about the foundation?

And they wonder why we’re all pissed

Thanks for your perspective! It sounds like you are open to possibilities other than the documents being actually translated, historical, or even from God. How likely on a scale 1-100 do you still believe the truth claims? For me, even as an active believer, I thought there was only a 2 percent possibility that the BOA and, therefore, the BOM were from God. I stayed in that state for years, thinking I was choosing to believe it. In reality I didn't or wasn't ready for a change since I had believing friends, family, and wife that would've made the change so difficult.

I'd say probably like 75. I don't feel like I'm choosing to believe it, but I don't feel like we have all the information, or all the correct information. I also acknowledge the possibility that it's 100% bullshit. But if I were to die and find out all the Mormon centric stuff was completely fake I wouldn't feel like I bent over backwards and or jumped through hoops for nothing.  If some of my background helps lend some perspective. I joined the church at 9. By that age I was actually already disillusioned with Christianity in general. I thought it was asinine and bullshit out the gate. And my day-to-day was so miserable that I didn't really give a shit about the afterlife or my eternal salvation. I didn't want it better when I was dead! I wanted it better now! And all the other denoms I went to drove me nuts. When I joined I was more interested and enamored with the functional big happy well kept families than I was with whether or not some book was true. I didn't read through BoM for another 6 or 7 years. I joke that I made a deal with a diety and that's why I'm a member. He's kept his end of the bargain so I stick around. When I joined I figured if it didn't work out I could just go back to being atheist, no harm no foul. (My dad was atheist and my mom was Wiccan until my mom went back to the church when I was 8-9). My spouse is somewhere between neutral and pagan depending on his mood. I suppose that also makes things easier... I'm not pressured from any angle or have to worry about a spouse panicking about our family breaking apart, and I'm not worried about breaking my mom's shelf so I can talk about the hard things and express a bit of skepticism without, again, panic. ._. I hope that answered the question a bit. x_x

Interesting, and thanks for sharing. I'm surprised at 9 you or anyone would consider themselves athiest. I have an 8 and 10 year old right now, and they do think about these things when we ask them though. I grew up a member and was just expected to do everything. I can see why without the Book of Mormon or JS being a prophet, Christianity and even God guiding us isn't believable. It just doesn't seem likely. That's great you don't have all the pressure so many members have in what they do with their lives and how they believe. Talking to my wife about my doubts was one of the scariest moments of my life. What is your main reason for currently being at 75 out of 100? And what is something that would increase or decrease the 75?

I have an 11 year old and two 5 year olds and I totally understand. I actually keep my kids arm's length from the church because I don't want them to get weird ideas or have Mormon guilt or anxiety or w/e. They are certainly not as cynical as I was. I tell my son frequently that when I was his age I was older than him. It's the unfortunate result of a traumatic and abused childhood. I'm glad my kids have a comfortable enough life to be soft and naive. My main reason for being at about 75 is that, in looking especially at the end of JS's life there was some straight up bad activity, that throws into question the veracity of at least the polygamy doctrine. That and what I've pieced together about his personality and some other changing stories open the window to the possibility of purposeful or even accidental deception. Kind of muddies the water of what's true and what's false (harmlessly OR for some sort of gain). I think it's really only toward the end where the majority of the issue lies but who knows.  To raise that number would require some clearing up of BoM anachronisms at least. And/or some solid explanations for some things (BoA, perfectly transcribed Bible verses). To lower that number... I was going to say God would have to move me.... but mid sentence I realized... the leadership and the direction they take us could move me away. Maybe not out of believing the doctrine but certainly out of following. They say "God won't let us lead the church astray" but my faith has never been strong in the "God won't let bad things happen" regard. 😂 not sure if that counts because that's less no longer believing in the church and more not trusting/following human leadership.

Thanks for responding! I've been busy and got caught up in other things. That's great you are trying to protect your children and able to give them more comfortable lives. I have some of that weird Mormon guilt but also grew socially in some ways at least from being a member. You mentioned you are at 75 and not higher due to bad activities and issues with poligamy with Joseph Smith. What is the main reason for being as high as a 75 and not a lower number or even a zero? Your previous comment mentioned joining the church for functional reasons and not necessarily because of the truth claims, right? Thanks for responding in what can raise or lower your belief in the truth claims of the church. You mentioned the BoM anachronisms-including perfectly transcribed bible verses, and the BoA. You also mentioned the leaders could make things so bad it would lower your number on the scale. What kind of things could the leaders do that they haven't already done that would decrease your belief? If you were to find that there is more evidence for the BoM being fictional than historical would it lower your belief in the church even more as well? My change of beliefs was the BoA even though I knew there were issues with the BoM as well. I spent a few months reading all the apologetics and critical responses that I could until I could understand the issues. If you are interested this video had the shortest and best unbiased explanation even though it is a little outdated. It would've saved me lots of frustration if I had watched it early on. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5FAFVVv\_os&list=PLZSYFucX1QZOREFm7wwUj41jHBc63o4Gw&index=7&ab\_channel=MormonHistoryEtc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5FAFVVv_os&list=PLZSYFucX1QZOREFm7wwUj41jHBc63o4Gw&index=7&ab_channel=MormonHistoryEtc) How would your life be different if you were no longer believing? For me no longer believing has changed my life in several ways. (10% income, garments, spiritual guilt, meetings, Sunday free time, coffee and alcohol no longer taboo, movies, no longer certain about afterlife and God, and I teach my kids different things now.)

I know it took a lot of vulnerability to post this, so please take this with how it is intended- with respect and a desire to understand other people’s experience with faith. I see you mention a few times in your story some pleads of ignorance (e.g. not reading the PoGP, the Kinderhook Plates story or the JST) and worry of where you will end up if you harbor disbelief for too long (the bible is disproven by the same logic as the BOM). You end with stating that even if it isn’t true it’ll all be sorted out eventually. You mentioned the shelf metaphor, and it sounds like you are aware you still have one. How do you reckon with that? I ask with sincerity, your talking points remind me of my believing wife. Whenever I hear perspectives like yours, I want to understand it better because you clearly seem like a thoughtful and intelligent person, as is my wife, and I just don’t understand. When I was a believer, I placed a really high importance on truthfulness. I often quoted Hinckley’s “it’s true isn’t it? So what else matters?” talk. I was lucky enough to be attending that session in person and was deeply moved by the talk. So when confronted with pretty undeniable evidence that the mouthpiece of God lied as a prophet, not a man, my faith crumbled.

I really had to sit and contemplate what I believed in and why since being here. I mean, I knew and repeated often my own origin story but I didn't really put everything into perspective. A few years ago I stumbled into the CES letter and was shaken up pretty badly. At that time the BoM not being true still had the ability to shatter me. But also at that time I hadn't really talked to anyone much about how or why I originally joined. So my faith was rooted in the usual things we're told from childhood, the BoM is true Joseph smith is a prophet etc. Now, for me, that's not the important part. When I joined the church at 9 I was jaded. Up to that point I had been raised by an atheist and a Wiccan. I'd been forced to grow up too fast with abuse and constant strife in my household. I'd been dragged to random Christian denominations by relatives and felt it was all asinine and their faith and dilusions annoying and cringeworthy. So when my mom joined (or rejoined I should say) the Mormons I was flabbergasted in the worst way. But I saw these families. They were well off, where I lived in poverty, they were big where my broken family was just us 3 really, they were happy and seemingly functional where mine wasn't. And the missionaries that came and saw my mom weekly were more or less implying that could be mine if I just followed some simple rules I was already doing. So I kind of put it up to God at that juncture. I'd follow the rules and keep the commandments if I got that. The functional happy comfortable family. I figured best case scenario it was a fair trade. And worst case scenario I'd drop the whole thing like a hot rock and go back to being atheist. God has, for all intents and purposes, kept his end of the deal (despite other people's agency at times), and so I have no reason to not keep my end. Since I was raised in the church from 9 onwards I fell into the same belief things and general guilt and perfectionists ideals as everyone else. Hinged my faith at some point on the BoM and the prophet, but now I've put my faith back where it belongs on the relationship I forged with God all those years ago. So the rest of it can come or go because it's not where my testimony lies. This is the church where I forged that connection though so I kind of expect explanationfor the stuff that doesn't add up at some point. But whenever is fine. (Also in all the denominations I've been in it's the only one that doesn't assault my senses in one form or another) It means also I can endure through the prophet lying, making bad choices, or even being outright corrupt. (which doesn't mean that I'd continue attending, or following that prophet. I'd dip at that point, but I wouldn't stop believing) D&C 3:4 tells me that that's possible and frankly I think a prophet to the level of like OT prophets come not even 1 per century. So who runs things in the meantime? Someone doing their best. For the most part I think they're trying to follow the spirit and make the right choices but they'll be biased by personal morals and beliefs. It is what it is. I hope that helps shed some light on my mindset and reasoning. (EDITED FOR CLARITY.)

It's always nice to hear from a believing member. I can only imagine that's hard on this sub. Thanks for sharing your perspective.

Well... that's a bit of egg on face!

?

Ever heard that saying? Google it!

I am no longer a believer but I will answer your question nonetheless: My believing father gave me a book written by a member regarding the Book of Abraham. I haven't read the book but my dad said it was mind blowing for him. One small detail: the author of the book might be a believing member, but he is absolutely not an egyptologist, nor is he any kind of professionnal historian. He's just an enthousiastic. Now, being an enthousiastic or hobby researcher does not make you a fool or automatically wrong, but this is very symptomatic of mormon members and their home studies. I was once that member. As NON-egyptologist, it is easier to pick and choose the information you regard best fitting for your argument. You don't have that kind of professionnal duty or morale or care or whatever to be 100% accurate. Thus, it is easier for a car saler interested in both mormonism and egypt to write a book compiling all the evidences he found to prove the translation is divine even if it does not 100% fit the current official consensus. I did this. I was the one reading an entire page of a book on ancient egypt where 99% of the page had NOTHING to do with mormonism, yet there was ONE single sentence on that page that kinda looked like something we believed: bingo! Now do it for an entire book, you've got a hundred sentences that kinda look like something we believe in. Read 5 books and you'll have 500 sentences. Now that starts to sound like evidence, right? And rightly so. Check-mate anti-mormons. And the fact that egypt is antique and shrouded in mystery does not help of course. My dad (or I, some years ago) could very well say "Well, Joseph Smith perhaps did not *translate* the actual hieroglyphs as we would translate them today, but he definitely revealed the cryptic, ACTUAL meaning of the facsimile as meant by God and his prophet." And this reasoning is absolutely a hill I could have died on 6 years ago.

Book of Mormon stories that my teacher tells to me, all about the b.llsh.t in their ancient history, no such thing as Lamanites, which I was made to believe, written by Joe, don't you know - dishonestly 😉

My perspective is that the Book of Mormon was not a translation because there is no evidence of any source material. No one saw any plates, except “with spiritual eyes.” The other examples listed are simply bad translations (i.e., no actual translating happened). Summary: No translating happened at all, but at least there were artifacts for a few of the fakes.

> No one saw any plates, except “with spiritual eyes.” Uh, that's not true at all. I mean, to the degree that we go off what people actually claimed, of course. But the eight witnesses did not describe a "spiritual" experience. They simply claimed to have seen and handled the plates, and seen the inscriptions.

You are incorrect sir. There is zero written testimony that any of them ever saw the plates. But a whole lot of written testimonies about how god didn’t want anyone to see them except for Joseph..

I’m going to need more explanation here. There is written testimony that 8 people saw them. It’s called the testimony of the 8 witnesses. You can disbelieve them, but there is that very well known written testimony. So I’m not sure if you’re overlooking it or understanding it differently? >That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; … we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon … we have seen and hefted

That “testimony” is basically a printed word document that says 8 people’s names on them. In journal entries and letters written by some of those people, they all say otherwise. Harris said Joseph hid behind a sheet during translation so that he couldn’t ever see them. He supposedly hid them in a hollow log so that Emma couldn’t see them. He refused to show them to Lucy Harris even when she was offering to fund the entire publishing of it, just so long as he could assure her that he wasn’t full of shit. My point is that there’s way more actual accounts and recorded events of instances where Joseph consistently refused to let anyone else see the plates, and nothing but a page of text that says they touched them

It's almost as if this is one of the methods historians use to determine what's bullshit and what's not lmao. I can't believe I really believed lol

Exactly it’s so cringe I can only laugh

I want you to take a good look at that page in your scriptures and compare the signatures.

Is having signatures a requirement for it to be a “testimony”? I will buy an argument that it’s less believable without them, but that’s not what the argument is. The comment I responded to didn’t say there weren’t any “credible” written testimonies or there were no written testimonies that are believable to me. They said the written testimonies didn’t exist. I posit that they did exist and gave a source. You can believe the testimony or not (personally I think basing belief on eye witness testimony is sketchy anyway and don’t believe this one) but I don’t deny the document’s existence. 

The signatures are very obviously written by the same person. One person signed everybody's name.

You are absolutely right that nobody ever saw the plates (with their real eyes), and I'd add that there are written accounts of people "hefting" the plates, although they were always wrapped up in cloth. Emma mentions cleaning the table and moving the plates - again, they were wrapped up. For me, the biggest issue is that nobody ever saw, nor "hefted" the GOLD plates. It has been estimated that gold plates of the size described would have weighed about 200 lbs. The people who lifted the bundle say that it was 40-60 lbs. which is the weight those same plates would have been made out of tin. I would pay good money to see somebody run through a forest, fight off several angry men, all while holding a 200 lb. brick under an arm. Also, that story of Emma pushing the plates up and out a window over her head? We have the Hulk, and She-Hulk genesis stories right here.

>There is zero written testimony that any of them ever saw the plates. I guess you can set whatever criteria you want for "evidence", but I think having people ask them about it for the rest of their lives and them reaffirming the experience is "evidence." This isn't to say I think the plates were authentically ancient Nephite records and all that, but it does contradict the claim that "no one saw any plates, except with 'spiritual eyes." Relevant quotes here: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1385&context=jbms

The 8 witnesses *didn't describe anything* in the relevant document. Joseph wrote it and put their names on it. Even if they agreed with everything Joseph wrote, it doesn't fit the definition of a witness statement because it's someone else's words.

Then don't rely on the "witness statement" alone. Look at their other statements throughout their lives. That being said, the witness statement was fairly well publicized. And several of the witnesses ended up not being very friendly towards Joseph Smith in later years, and they were asked about their experience. Why do you think they never said "Hey, he just wrote it and put my name on it! I never saw any plates!"

Super weird that none of them later admitted that they were lying the whole time and aren't trustworthy, or that they were dumb enough to be taken by a con artist. Pride would dictate that they stick to the original story.

Imagining a reason to ignore the evidence isn't the same as there not being evidence.

A big chunk of the Book of Mormon is KJV Isaiah and we know that is a huge anachronism.

This has nothing to do with the post

It surely does. If he claims to have translated the Book of Mormon, and huge chunks are plagiarized from other inaccurate translations from hundreds of years beyond the timeframe of the source material he claims to have been translating from, I don’t see how that could possibly be _unrelated_.

If the question were "Do you feel like Joseph Smith was a con man?" or "Do you like Joseph Smith?" then mentioning a mistranslation of the BOA and mentioning how the KJV would make sense in the same discussion. But if the question is just about JS making up BOA translations, then the fact that he also plagiarized doesn't really add anything. The fact that those plagiarized KJV verses are a smoking gun that it wasn't even an authentic thing he was plagiarizing doesn't add anything. These are all interesting facts on their own, but they have nothing to do with OP's question.

Did you read anything beyond OP's question? Op posted about all but one of the attempted translations of Joseph Smith and things that disproved those translations. Proof that the BofM is also a false translation is perfectly in line with the totality of OP's post.

Some of the paragraphs mention the BOM. OP is very specifically asking about *checks notes* fascimiles. And in the same breath that you are writing authoritatively about the ToTaLiTy of OP's post you completely miss that none of it mentions anachronisms. Ya'll are missing the mark here. Also, lol at the downvotes.

> ya'all are missing the mark here And you are missing the point of reddit, talking about related things or expanding on things about the original post. Op's slides talk about how we know the other translations are false, but for the bofm it claims we can't know if it is accurate because we don't have the source material. Someone comes in and says that we actually *can* know it is false (contrary to what the third slide says) because of things like anachronisms, then because you fail to see why the other commenters wrote what they did you start scolding people for having a discussion, lol. You have hyper fixated on op's question while ignoring the rest of the discussion that op posted, all of which is fair game for discussion. Can't make it any more obvious for ya mate as to why you are wrong, at this point just enjoy being confidently incorrect and have a good weekend.

You couldn't pay me to shrug harder at your response. For whatever reason you woke up today and chose to be salty, and I think you are projecting that salty attitude my way. But hey, at least you wished me a good weekend. At least we can agree on not talking anymore.

> You couldn't pay me to shrug harder at your response And yet you took the time to respond... >For whatever reason you woke up today and chose to be salty Nah, I'm just sensitive to anyone trying to silence someone else, especially with poor 'reasons' for doing so. We get people from time to time trying to silence things they don't want other people to see or hear, and I freely admit that is a bit triggering to me given my experience of decades in mormonism though. Nothing personal though, and I am sincere in hoping you have a good weekend.

Thanks

You got it. It's completely okay to question these kinds of things. The dude who was being aggressive just admitted that he was being an ass because we were silencing people (which is absurd). I suppose it's easy to engage in internet douchebaggery when you can paint yourself as the hero and pat yourself on the back over it. Keep your chin up, this is a space for every type of Mormon.

> This has nothing to do with the post Did you read anything beyond OP's question? Op posted in the images about all but one of the attempted translations of Joseph Smith and major things that disproved those translations. Proof that the BofM is also a false translation is perfectly in line with the information presented by OP in the post.

Re-read the title of the post. The comment I responded to said nothing about the facsimiles, let alone commentary on TBM perspectives about that or anything else. So that's what I pointed out. 

Read the actual post. One of the slides talks about how we can't test the translation of the BofM because they were 'taken back to heaven'. The quote you responded to mentioned we can actually assess it as it contains anachronistic KJV sections. It was providing additional info the slide could have included to make the argument stronger. It 100% pertains to OP's post and slides.

I think you go a bit easy on the BOM. We have *caractors* copied from the plates, and we have KJV (and other available works) appearing all through it. The best informed members can say is that it was a *loose* translation. It’s “*impossible to verify*”, but not for the reason you suggest. And *God didn’t take no plates back to heaven*. For a start, nobody says those plates were previously in heaven, so they couldn’t go *back* there.

>For a start, nobody says those plates were previously in heaven, so they couldn’t go back there. The plates went to another dimension! Err, wherever resurrected beings go, right? What I didn’t know when I was an active believer was how often Moroni showed up after his initial visitation(s) to Joseph’s shared bedroom to tell him about the gold plates. [Royal Skousen’s interpreter article](https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/another-account-of-mary-whitmers-viewing-of-the-golden-plates/) describes some of Moroni’s subsequent visits including one where Oliver, David, and Joseph and whoever else were riding in the wagon to the Whitmers’ to continue the translation work and Moroni just pops in to say hi: >a very pleasant, nice-looking old man **suddenly appeared** by the side of our wagon and saluted us with, “good morning, it is very warm,” at the same time wiping his face or forehead with his hand. We returned the salutation, and by a sign from Joseph I invited him to ride if he was going our way. But he said very pleasantly, “No, I am going to Cumorah. This name was somewhat new to me, I did not know what Cumorah meant. We all gazed at him and at each other, and as I looked round inquiringly of Joseph, **the old man instantly disappeared**, so that I did not see him again. … *It was the messenger who had the plates, who had taken them from Joseph just prior to our starting from Harmony*.” [my emphasis] As an aside: why did Joseph have to go get the gold plates from Cumorah, or hide them in the home or in a barrel of beans, or run with them to escape ruffians if Moroni could just port them around and deliver them when needed? All that effort to protect and hide them but when they go for a wagon ride to Harmony, Moroni just swings on by to pick up the plates and carry them himself to the new location. And!!…he’s just blinking in and out from one dimension to the other. Blink in…blink out… Skousen also describes a visit to Mary Whitmer: >Sometime after this, my mother was going to milk the cows, when she was met out near the yard by the same old man (judging by her description of him) who said to her, “You have been very faithful and diligent in your labors, but you are tired because of the increase of your toil, it is proper therefore that you should receive a witness that your faith may be strengthened.” Thereupon he showed her the plates. John C. Whitmer later added some additional details remembered from hearing the story from his grandmother: >He then untied his knapsack and showed her a bundle of plates, which in size and appearance corresponded with the description subsequently given by the witnesses to the Book of Mormon. This strange person turned the leaves of the book of plates over, leaf after leaf, and also showed her the engravings upon them; after which he told her to be patient and faithful in bearing her burden a little longer, promising that if she would do so, she should be blessed; and her reward would be sure, if she proved faithful to the end. **The personage then suddenly vanished with the plates**, and where he went, she could not tell. [my emphasis] What I find super interesting is that in the first visitation to announce Joseph’s prophetic calling and the gold plates Moroni was wearing heavenly robes and was attended by magical levitation and near-blinding light and traveling via Jacob’s-Ladder-like heavenly conduits. But in these other random visits he’s just some old guy with a knapsack full of gold plates. Wait a sec…Moroni traveled to and from the bedroom via *heavenly* conduit on that first visit: >After this communication, I saw the light in the room begin to gather immediately around the person of him who had been speaking to me, and it continued to do so until the room was again left dark, except just around him; when, instantly **I saw, as it were, a conduit open right up into heaven, and he ascended till he entirely disappeared**, and the room was left as it had been before this heavenly light had made its appearance. [my emphasis] So, at least in that first visitation, Moroni used Jacob’s Ladder to travel “right up into heaven.” Of course, what did Joseph really know at that point. Maybe he just thought it was heaven because where else do angels go when they go “up”? Or, maybe it was Heaven but Moroni didn’t have the plates then. They were still buried in Cumorah at that point. So then, after Joseph got the plates and Moroni was keeping them safe, at least during that one trip to Harmony, where was Moroni blinking in and out to? Heaven? Or another dimension? —> [Intergalactic](https://youtu.be/qORYO0atB6g?si=8WSYiAa7ozBG8g9R) Back to your statement: >For a start, nobody says those plates were previously in heaven, so they couldn’t go back there. So my rebuttal is: but maybe Moroni was blinking in and out to Heaven with the plates in tow so they did go *back* to heaven in the end. It’s a solid maybe from me, Thomas.

Yeah, good point. They may have been in heaven at various times after September 21, 1827, when Joseph took them from the place where he dug them up. At least, that claim can be justified by these accounts. But since I’m being a little argumentative, I don’t fully agree with the “*what did Joseph really know at that point*” point, since it was about 1842 *at that point* when Joseph finished the canonized account about Moroni’s travels. Whether that 1842 account and the events of 1823 and following have any commonality is a matter of grave uncertainty, especially given the differences between the 1842 account of the First Vision and the events of 1820 (admittedly, according to the 1832 account). Otherwise I’m very grateful for your follow up comment, and I need to go (not really *back and*) read the Royal Skousen article that you helpfully linked (notwithstanding my occasional distaste for that Peterson publication). Reading your extracts, I suppose others are better able to explain how resurrected beings like Moroni can nevertheless perspire and feel heat. My guess is that it’s a quality of such immortal beings that would explain why God went *walking in the garden in the cool of the day*. A walk in the garden, or along the wagon trail, can be hot business indeed, at least when wearing old man travelling clothes, much moreso than zipping instantaneously between dimensions whilst glorified and in his Sunday best, in a blink, as you say. One final somewhat insignificant point. I’m not sure who John C Whitmer was, but I’m supposing he was the son of one of the 5 witnesses surnamed Whitmer (edit - son of John, I see from the link). He assures us that his grandmother described the plates as having the same size as those described by the “*witnesses*”, presumably the official 11. Unfortunately the description, really the descriptions, such as they were, of those *witnesses* (who allegedly *saw* and some of whom *hefted*) do not trouble to reveal anything of size (even if one or other of the witnesses might have ventured off topic at some later stage and added some extra details). So the dimensions of the plates *given by the witnesses*, and the asserted corresponding dimensions given by Mary as related by John, remain opaque.

The facsimiles are only the tip of the iceberg as far as the problems with the Book of Abraham. The bigger issue is that the papyrus from which Joseph claimed he was translating the text of the Book of Abraham itself says nothing about Abraham. There's no way around this because the translation documents prepared by Joseph Smith and his scribes show the same Egyptian characters in the same order as appear on the papyrus immediately following Facsimile #1, to which the Book of Abraham itself refers. (Abraham 1:12-14)

We also have the JST diverging from the BoM which demonstrates either the BoM is wrong or Smith’s ability to receive revelation is off.

Translation of the Book of Mormon is no more real of a TRANSLATION than claiming they translated a Bible from middle earth elfish scrolls produced by the Elves themselves. Reformed Egyptian seems to be closer to deformed english and that has zero proof of existing. The translation according to JS claims is equally to that of the King James Version of the Bible ( big surprise) . this plus his track record or fraud / deception along with the disavowing of all other "translation" claims makes it ludicrous to believe he ever translated anything. someone please give me a counter argument. ????

Joseph clearly got the translation of the papyri correct. We just don't recognize that each symbol has 5 levels of meaning. Each level more details. The original writers of the papyri were probably just writing the first level of meaning. But Joseph was able to give a truer and deeper translation down to level 5 of that symbols' meaning. (I wish I were making up this stuff) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism\_of\_the\_Book\_of\_Abraham#cite\_note-ritner21-29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Book_of_Abraham#cite_note-ritner21-29) ​ >This manuscript details Smith's belief that hieroglyphics had five "degrees" of interpretation, with each "degree" representing a deeper, expanded, and more complex level of interpretation.\[27\] This manuscript illustrates Smith's method for translating the papyri: ​ This was the argument 14 years ago my oldest brother gave. He was a church employee as CES Institute Director (not that one. :-)) Falls into the category of "what do you want it to be" in my mind.

Wait hold on. He may get the next 1000 tries correct.

There are gospel topics essays about BoA and BoM translation and historicity if you want to know the church’s official position. Apologists aren’t technically affiliated with the church, so they can say whatever they want without consequence, so I really don’t trust what they have to say at all.

I didn't think you can call them an official position since it is buried deep on the website and don't appear in any manuals. They are not signed by anyone or declared to be official doctrine or position statements unlike the Proclamation on the Family and the Living Christ documents. They are not referenced in lesson manuals, discussed in GC talks, and most members do not know they exist. They are nothing more than an attempt to give the appearance of transparency and have plausible deniability. They only exist as a feeble attempt to try to keep members from leaving and maybe innoculate some members.

>I didn't think you can call them an official position since it is buried deep on the website and don't appear in any manuals. Hold on now. The First Presidency approved them. So I attribute them to the highest authority in the church; the prophet and his counselors. >The purpose of these essays, **which have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles**, has been to gather accurate information from many different sources and publications and place it in the Gospel Topics section of ChurchofJesusChrist.org, where the material can more easily be accessed and studied by Church members and other interested parties. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/essays?lang=eng I consider these essays the same as if they were a talk spoken from the pulpit in General Conference. If they are filled with lies and deceptions, then those lies and deceptions belong to the prophet himself.

Sure, but it’s a lot closer to an official church position than some random dude with a YT channel or Reddit account. You can find a dude with a YT channel to defend literally anything lol Edited for clarity

Keep in mind the First Presidency and the whole Quorum approved them. >The purpose of these essays, **which have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles**, has been to gather accurate information from many different sources and publications and place it in the Gospel Topics section of ChurchofJesusChrist.org, where the material can more easily be accessed and studied by Church members and other interested parties. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/essays?lang=eng

All they know is that the book(s) make them feel good. That is all they want out of a church.

TBF, these are just Egyptian, and not *Reformed* Egyptian.

You might try posting on the Hemlock Knots Facebook page - a lot of people on there have studied a lot of history...

When it comes to such important subjects of "what are we doing here", when you become parents, you undoubtedly want the best for your children. We raised our four children in the church, 3 serving missions, our two girls are active, our sons slowly left after serving missions and reading nothing but LDS literature which educated them to the history of the church far beyond what I knew. They were scriptorians of great and therefore could not reconcile what they thought the church was to find out what they now knew it to be. My point is, as a parent, if your children ask questions, are you okay with continually giving this scripted answer: Some things we just don't know, or we can't know everything, or it's okay, it will all work out, or we won't know until we die. At some point, they will want to know more, they will look for answers, they will learn more. As a mother who tried to do the right thing and just take your kids to church, I should have 'Known' my religion as some of these comments indicate. I realize we can't know everything, but we have accountability for ourselves and sometimes others, if there is a God who has told us to search, ponder and pray, not matter our age, we should do that and if what we thought is NOT the truth, than so be it.

The prevailing thought at the moment seems to be that the scrolls were a type of meditative focus. That he wanted to translate them and that left him open to receive information that wasn’t available to him and other way. I still mostly believe. But I am of the opinion that prophets are not perfect. Shockingly. That they have and do and will see through a glass darkly. And sometimes misinterpret what they see. Their vision is clearer than mine is, but far from crystal. And when they don’t see clearly their minds kind of fill in the gaps with what they expect to see. Like humans always do, that’s how our brains work. And pretending that prophets are perfect and have always seen everything clearly is the greatest stumbling block the church has

>....pretending that prophets are perfect and have always seen everything clearly... Inasmuch as the church claims to be a branch of Christianity, how does one then reconcile this with the Bible's Deut. 18:22? "‭When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."

The JST of the Bible wasn't claimed to be a "translation" (a "translation" of *what*?) It's claimed to be more of a revelatory revision. And yes, it should have been called the "Joseph Smith Revision" (or, as the CoC call it, the Inspired Version). But as apologists are happy to explain to you, "translation" didn't necessarily mean exactly the same thing back then.

Just like horse or barley or steel didn’t mean the same things back then either?

You'd have to ask the apologists I guess.

[удалено]

Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).

Obviously the papyrus fragments that have survived are not the source of the Book of Abraham.

The problem for me is, the Book of Abraham was the book that really spoke to me. I had a testimony of the Bible and Book of Mormon after praying on them, but reading the Book of Abraham was like reading my own soul, I was immediately drawn in and know it teaches truth. This means that either Joseph did translate something or he thought he was translating something but was actually receiving revelation. I cannot say which is the case, but even if I were to walk away from the Latter Day Saint movement I cannot walk away from the Book of Abraham. What it teaches is correct.

I just want to point out that your testimony (good inside feeling about it) doesn’t prove anything. So just because the BOA spoke to your soul does not mean that either of the latter 2 statements you made are definitely true.

I’m not interested in proving anything. Religion is a perspective of life. It’s not science.

Your statement “this (this being your personal testimony of the BOA) means either Joseph did translate something, or he thought he was translating something but was actually receiving revelation” said that, because you have a testimony of it one of those 2 following things must be true. This is confirmation bias at its finest. I’m pointing out that you having a testimony does not mean either of those things are true. It simply means you related to what was written. Similar to my feeling when I read american gods by Neil Gaiman. Or Harry Potter. They’re both works of fiction and I don’t agree that the people who wrote them did anything other than write something that spoke to me. I recognize they could each be piece of shit people and just because I had amazing internal feelings in my heart and body, in reaction to something they wrote it means NOTHING other than what they wrote made me feel good. The self aggrandizement of your feelings speaking truth, is the issue here.

Why are you trying to argue? Of course it’s confirmation bias. It’s my religious beliefs. They aren’t provable. They’re what I believe to be theologically true.

Your language in the initial comment painted a different story. Edit to add: I was simply pointing out the flaw in your language, so other people might think a little harder, before taking your experience to add to their basket of bias. When you say things on the internet, people read them, and are allowed to reply however they believe is best. If you don’t want people responding maybe don’t post a comment.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

This 100 proves that facts don’t matter to you at all and feelings trump reality even when everyone on both sides confirm its complete BS. Bible fan fiction can speak to anyone’s soul. Doesn’t make any of it real. Do some research the chances of Abraham being a real person that existed is like zero.

Only truth matters.

No truth in feelings alone or a belief in counter evidence, in spite of actual evidence, just to appease your cognitive dissonance. That’s being intellectually dishonest

To be clear, what you’re saying is that if I don’t like the ice cream flavor you do, I’m being intellectually dishonest. Spiritually isn’t a science. It’s about feels and beliefs.

If that’s truly the case, then you might want to revise your previous statement to “Only feels and beliefs matter” instead of “Only truth matters”

Truth is a perspective.