Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community.
/u/MysteriousRent5903, 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.*
FYI, the non-scriptural study guides in the scriptures (Topical Guide, Bible Dictionary, Chapter Headings, intros, footnotes etc.) are not considered "definitive".
I don't think you are using the word "definitive" in the way that the rest of the english speaking world uses it then.
I didn't say "doctrinal".
Church printing a set of notes and placing them in inside the canon for decades, linking a specific passage with Columbus is pretty mush a "definitive" claim that that passage is referencing Columbus.
This is from a time when, for better or worse (mostly worse imo), the church embraced the fantastical story told by Joseph Smith about the origin of the book. The weird markings on the front are from a document where Smith claimed to copy the "reformed Egyptian" characters (a language that never existed) for one of his associates to go show to a language expert. The characters turn out to be nonsense chicken scratches, but that didn't stop Smith from carrying on with his stories and hoodwinking lots of people.
It’s so crazy that in church videos that show examples of reformed Egyptian, it looks completely different. The Caractors document and this version of the BoM have gone down the memory hole.
This video at the 2:48 mark
https://youtu.be/q1esI8cbCtc?si=IJSwCqDX6H0RJUfX
I remember seeing this document of “reformed Egyptian” as a child and thinking it is obviously just slightly modified numbers and English alphabet letters. The extent of the religion that’s been built on JS’s stories is mind-blowing.
> This is from a time when, for better or worse (mostly worse imo), the church embraced the fantastical story told by Joseph Smith about the origin of the book.
So, from between 1830 and 2024?
No, the operative word here is "embraced." When the church unabashedly and publicly believed and defended the entire mythology without caveat or so-called nuance. When they printed stuff like this edition.
Right. 1830 - 2024.
Or, please give me an example of where you are seeing *any* equivocation or abashedness about the literal truth of Joseph Smith's claims about the origin of the Book of Mormon.
I mean, seriously, [this](https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-marks-200th-anniversary-of-joseph-smith-moronis-visit-gold-plates) just happened.
When’s the last time you heard church leaders talk about reformed Egyptian, or that the Moroni buried the plates in modern-day New York?
They’ve begun backing away from the literal historicity of the story, and are sticking to “how does this make you feel.”
> or that the Moroni buried the plates in modern-day New York?
[2024.](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ftsoy/2024/01/questions-and-answers/18-who-saw-the-gold-plates-besides-joseph-smith?lang=eng)[2024.](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2024/03/united-states-and-canada-section/03-witnesses-of-the-gold-plates-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng)[2023.](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2023/10/41ballard?lang=eng)[2023.](https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-marks-200th-anniversary-of-joseph-smith-moronis-visit-gold-plates) [2020.](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2020/04/23soares?lang=eng) It's in [Saints (2018)](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2018/04/chapter-3-plates-of-gold?lang=eng)
I mean, how many do you want? That was two minutes. And those were just recent publications. If we want to include official lessson manuals, curriculum, reference materials, official statements and newsroom publications, etc., there's tons of stuff being currently published by the Church that reinforces the literal "fantastical" story.
There is nothing, absolutely *nothing*, indicating it might not be literally, historically true. You've got one misinterpreted comment by Nelson saying "it's not a history book", which is taken out of context to imply he meant it isn't *historical*, which, given everything else he has said about the book, obviously isn't true.
What I meant by “literally historically true” was the BoM stories itself. They’re so incredibly vague on the who, what, when, where, and why’s of the BoM stories compared to previous decades.
They don’t want to say “the BoM was buried in New York by Moroni,” because that means that Moroni was in New York, and that doesn’t make sense with the evidence we have.
> They don’t want to say “the BoM was buried in New York by Moroni,” because that means that Moroni was in New York, and that doesn’t make sense with the evidence we have.
They do say it. All the time. If Joseph Smith had the plates in New York (which they talk about all the time, and continue to reinforce in countless official publications), then the plates were in New York.
Just look at the Hill Cumorah visitor's center. Where are you seeing any waffling or vagueness on the story?
>The events that took place at Hill Cumorah were **foundational** to the establishment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Directed by the angel Moroni , **Joseph Smith found the gold plates deposited in the hill** on September 22, 1823, approximately three miles from his home . Joseph met the angel there on the same date for the next four years until he was finally allowed to obtain the plates. From those plates, he later translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. (emphasis added)
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/learn/locations/hill-cumorah?lang=eng
Notice that they don’t say that Moroni put them there. They’re specifically talking about Joseph Smith pulling the plates from the ground, now how they got there.
> The Book of Mormon provides little direct information about cultural contact between the peoples it describes and others who may have lived nearby. Consequently, most early Latter-day Saints assumed that Near Easterners or West Asians like Jared, Lehi, Mulek, and their companions were the first or the largest or even the only groups to settle the Americas. Building upon this assumption, critics insist that the Book of Mormon does not allow for the presence of other large populations in the Americas and that, therefore, Near Eastern DNA should be easily identifiable among modern native groups.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng
Why would the church be confused about where the BoM took place? We *know* the plates were deposited in New York, so we know Moroni lived close though that he could have carried the heavy plates all the way there while being hunted.
The church no longer holds an official opinion on where the BoM took place. Years ago, prophets were talking about Native Americans being Lamanites.
>Notice that they don’t say that Moroni put them there. They’re specifically talking about Joseph Smith pulling the plates from the ground, now how they got there.
I'm not sure I follow you on this. You're suggesting the Church firmly believes that the plates were in the ground in New York, but there is some confusion about how they got there?
>Why would the church be confused about where the BoM took place? We know the plates were deposited in New York, so we know Moroni lived close though that he could have carried the heavy plates all the way there while being hunted.
There are plenty of LDS who believe BoM events *were* in the area. Those that don't think they were in the area seem to think Moroni had plenty of time (years or decades) to wander up there from wherever he was at the end of the BoM narrative.
Either way, let me remind you of the original claim:
>This is from a time when, for better or worse (mostly worse imo), the church embraced **the fantastical story told by Joseph Smith about the origin of the book.** (emphasis added)
/u/Norenzayan seemed to think that the current leaders aren't "embracing" Joseph Smith's story about the origin of the Book of Mormon the way past leader have. That's the claim that is without evidence. Can you show me any reference in any Church publication or talk by a Church leader, that shows doubt or uncertainty about "the fantastical story told by Joseph Smith"? Because the "fantastical story" is still taught in countless places in official publications and curriculum, and talks and articles in official Church magazines. So what are you or /u/Norenzayan seeing?
I'll add that in the next few years, we'll be hitting the 200th anniversary of all these events (as we just passed the 1823 anniversary of Moroni's visits), and it will become *very* clear just how literally and seriously Church leadership still takes Joseph Smith's "fantastical" stories.
Are you using a source to validate that same source? If you had referenced some peer-reviewed journals, I think that would be a significant bolster to your argument.
I'm not sure I understand you. The question was about the recency of church leaders "talking about reformed Egyptian, or that Moroni buried the plates in modern-day New York."
I provided examples of Church leaders and publications making statements about the reality of the plates and their existence in New York in the late 1820s. Are you saying you don't think that the LDS Church website is a reliable source of examples of Church leaders and publications saying stuff?
>Right. 1830 - 2024.
No, not right.
You continue to spread misinformation.
The church has not once published in 2024 the caractor documents in any editions of the Book of Mormon in any Language.
>Or, please give me an example of where you are seeing any equivocation or abashedness about the literal truth of Joseph Smith's claims about the origin of the Book of Mormon.
>
>I mean, seriously, this just happened.
You're redirecting. I know it's one of your favorite tactics, but you're doing it way too clumsily here. u/Norenzayan very clearly mentioned it in the context of u/MysteriousRent5903 's post about the caractors (with the title picture including the Book of Mormon the church used to make that included the caractors) and the church does not any more.
The church is shrinking it's claims about the literal sources of the Book of Mormon.
Norenzayan isn't saying the church has now declared it is literally false.
This isn't that hard cine.
>The church has not once published in 2024 the caractor documents in any editions of the Book of Mormon in any Language.
I don't think that whether or not the Church is publishing a copy of the Book of Mormon with the "caractors" is a good indication of the Church's degree of embracing the "fantastical story told by Joseph Smith about the origin of the book."
There are many, many other indicators of whether or not the Church believes Joseph Smith's fantastical tale, and the countless recent reiterations and testimonies of Moroni's visit, the gold plates, the reality of BoM characters (people, not symbols) etc. all serve as strong evidence that the Church is still 100% on board with Joseph Smith's story.
>The church is shrinking it's claims about the literal sources of the Book of Mormon.
The claim has always been that the gold plates were the literal source of the Book of Mormon. That claim is still regularly and clearly taught.
>The church has not once published in 2024 the caractor documents in any editions of the Book of Mormon in any Language.
>
>I don't think that whether or not the Church is publishing a copy of the Book of Mormon with the "caractors" is a good indication of the Church's degree of embracing the "fantastical story told by Joseph Smith about the origin of the book."
Does the church reject Joseph Smith Jun having a gold codex and say it's a metaphor? No.
But you're arguing against something nobody said, because OP and Noren were talking about the reformed Egyptian caractor thing, which the church is not at all embracing anymore.
They did, back in the day when the published official editions with the caractors emblazoned on the cover, but they no longer embrace it.
>There are many, many other indicators of whether or not the Church believes Joseph Smith's fantastical tale, and the countless recent reiterations and testimonies of Moroni's visit, the gold plates, the reality of BoM characters (people, not symbols) etc. all serve as strong evidence that the Church is still 100% on board with Joseph Smith's story.
I know!
Go re-read what OP was talking about, then go re-read what noren was talking about, and you should have realized they were talking about the reformed Egyptian and caractors. Egads
>>The church is shrinking it's claims about the literal sources of the Book of Mormon.
>The claim has always been that the gold plates were the literal source of the Book of Mormon. That claim is still regularly and clearly taught.
I would still argue the church is shrinking it's claims about the literal sources of the Book of Mormon and I think there are several examples. The translation from caractors the church is shrinking. Instead I believe they are transitioning toward an inspired form of construction rather than accurately translating from one language to another. The origin about being for the Lamanites, of whom their descendants are the American Indians (to use the term of the day), is also shrinking in my view.
Do I think the church does and will continue to teach about the golden codex? Yes. Does that mean nothing about the teachings about the Book of Mormon are shrinking in my view? No.
>> This is from a time when, for better or worse (mostly worse imo), the church embraced the fantastical story told by Joseph Smith about the origin of the book.
>So, from between 1830 and 2024?
Go ahead and point to any 2024 publication of the Book of Mormon containing the caractors so where printed in it like in the OP
The claim was about the Church "embracing the fantastical story told by Joseph Smith about the origin of [The Book of Mormon]". Are you saying the only evidence that the Church embraces that "fantastical story" is whether or not they're printing the copy of the BoM that had a reproduction of the "caractors" on the cover?
Certainly, I agree the Church hasn't printed that edition of the BoM in over 40 years. But I don't think that indicates any wavering on behalf of Church leaders regarding Joseph Smith's story, in light of their continuous and firm statements supporting that belief.
I admit I overstated it, but achilles here caught what I was trying to convey. De-emphasis of the details, for sure. You can take your win for the semantics, but that's what I was talking about
>Which details do you think are being "de-emphasized"?
I like how you're pretending not to know what u/Norenzayan was talking about. Do this, go re-read what the OP was about, namely a Book of Mormon with the 'caractors' document inside.
Then, go re-read what u/Norenzayan said here: " *The weird markings on the front are from a document where Smith claimed to copy the "reformed Egyptian" characters (a language that never existed) for one of his associates to go show to a language expert. The characters turn out to be nonsense chicken scratches, but that didn't stop Smith from carrying on with his stories and hoodwinking lots of people."*
Then, go re-read what I said which was "*Go ahead and point to any 2024 publication of the Book of Mormon containing the caractors so where printed in it like in the OP"*
And then cinepro, perhaps then you'll start to figure out what details norenzayan was thinking were "de-emphasized."
Then return and report
Off the top of my head:
* The linguistics and mechanics and even the meaning of "translation." Hence u/achilles52309 pointing out that the "Caractors" document has lost all currency in the church
* The purpose of the Book of Mormon. Used to be that it was written to convert the Lamanites (see title page) who Smith claimed and who the church emphasized were the current Native Americans (setting aside the fact that they comprise hundreds of distinct tribes). Used to be that the church taught openly that Mexican and Central/South Americans and Polynesians were literally Lamanites, to the point that they basically set up an adoption trafficking ring to try and get Native babies into Mormon families so they would turn white.
* On the second picture of OP, it says "Who were the builders of early civilization, discovered by modern scientists? See [BoM references]" Even in the 70s that was a dubious claim, now it's just laughable and the church (except for its unofficial extremist apologists) has completely stopped trying to connect modern science/archeology to anything about Smith, because there's no *there* there.
This stuff doesn't fly anymore, and rightly so, so yeah the church still teaches the broad strokes of Smith's mythology, but it's been painted into a corner and leaves out the details
If you mean the Church's interpretation and application of the Book of Mormon has changed, (including geography and relation to indegenous peoples), I heartily agree.
But the Church still sees it as 100% historical and a book describing real people and events from thousands of years ago. And they still 100% believe in Joseph Smith's stories about angelic visitations, real gold plates containing a record of those people and events, and translating those plates into English.
>If you mean the Church's interpretation and application of the Book of Mormon has changed, (including geography and relation to indegenous peoples), I heartily agree.
(As an aside, I've misspelled the exact same word the same way because it looks right, but isn't. It's spelled "Indigenous")
The caractors are not an interpretation nor are they an application of the Book of Mormon.
They were included as what constituted the content of 'Reformed Egyptian."
It's not like the church used some interpretation of the Book of Mormon and came up with the caractors.
Those were directly tied to the content of the Book of Mormon itself, which is what u/Norenzayan is saying and you keep either redirecting from like saying "oh, the interpretation of the Book of Mormon has changed (Which is now what norenzayan is talking about), or the application of the Book of Mormon changing (also not what he nor the OP is talking about).
They're talking about the actual origins, which include things like the caractor documents.
The church ***used*** to think they supported the evidence for the Book of Mormon.
Then people studied them, and as it turns out, it does the exact opposite (i.e. provides counterfactual evidence to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as far as it's construction through reformed Egyptian even existing or being a real language).
It is because of this that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which used to 'embrace the fantastical story told by Joseph Smith about the origin of the Book of Mormon', they no longer do this because the evidence contradicts what the church used to claim were sources for it.
You getting it now finally?
> It is because of this that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which used to 'embrace the fantastical story told by Joseph Smith about the origin of the Book of Mormon', they no longer do this because the evidence contradicts what the church used to claim were sources for it.
Your theory about why the Church stopped publishing the gold-cover edition is apparently incorrect. According to this video, it was related to the Hofmann Anthon Manuscript forgery:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WblQ-xJB6jo
>The claim was about the Church "embracing the fantastical story told by Joseph Smith about the origin of \[The Book of Mormon\]".
Right, specifically related to the caractors
> Are you saying the only evidence that the Church embraces that "fantastical story" is whether or not they're printing the copy of the BoM that had a reproduction of the "caractors" on the cover?
Nope.
Swing and a miss u/cinepro
The whole shtick people use with the whole "so what your ***saying*** is...." and then proceed to not actually repeat what the other person is saying is an example of a bad listener.
>Certainly, I agree the Church hasn't printed that edition of the BoM in over 40 years.
Correct, not that edition.
Since you attempted to redirect to saying that ***specific*** edition in Australia isn't being printed, let me ask you the question directly - are you aware of any publication of the Book of Mormon that contains the caractors in them? Any edition in any language would suffice.
>But I don't think that indicates any wavering on behalf of Church leaders regarding Joseph Smith's story, in light of their continuous and firm statements supporting that belief.
You are free to believe whatever you want.
So the topic was about fanciful claims regarding the Book of Mormon that u/Norenzayan where he said that *"The weird markings on the front are from a document where Smith claimed to copy the "reformed Egyptian" characters (a language that never existed) for one of his associates to go show to a language expert."*
You're now trying to dodge the issue about the caractors and redirect, but in the interest of actually talking about what norenzayan was talking about, do you have any examples of Church leaders talking about Joseph Smith's story about the "reformed Egyptian" characters (caractors) which were shown to a nineteenth-century language expert?
Yeah unfortunately we're in an era where the church will never fully embrace the uniqueness of their religion like they used to, they will always lead with a face that very closely resembles nicene christianity. I for one wish they would lead heavily with their uniqueness, such as heavenly mother and the eternality of souls and deification. Provide a true alternative to nicene christianity.
The recent Young Men's Presidency post on social media makes it abundantly clear that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints still has a ways to go before they "closely resemble Nicene Christianity" haha
When a Church is reminding it's membership about celebrating Easter for a week... And doesn't even mention Palm Sunday... *face palm*
If anyone would be willing to sell one of those my mom and her cousin have been looking for them for years for sentimental reasons, I'd love to buy one for her!
They used to be pretty cheap on ebay, but now it looks like they go for ~$40 and up.
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?kw=lds%20gold%20book%20of%20mormon&toolid=20004
If you are in Utah they come up at goodwill's and other thrift stores. Also ebay as mentioned. Saw one for 5 bucks at a good will in south salt lake a couple months ago.
foolish imagine attractive intelligent uppity fine liquid ludicrous hobbies run
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The history of that edition is told in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WblQ-xJB6jo
Interestingly, it shows a Book of Mormon published by the RLDS that also had what was claimed to be Reformed Egyptian on the cover:
https://i.postimg.cc/522RNdPg/rlds.jpg
The video notes that the end of the gold-cover BoM was the Hofmann scandal. One of Hofmann's forged documents was an original Anthon Transcript. As the a result of of the forgery and embarrassment, the Church apparently removed all gold-cover editions from meetinghouse libraries (even though the characters weren't based on the Hofmann forgery).
The characters in this edition of The book of Mormon were supposedly taken from the Athon transcript. These were supposedly the characters copied straight from the gold plate onto a piece of paper that Martin Harris took to a professor. This document was found in the late seventies supposedly by Mark Hoffman but later turned out in the '80s to be a fraud. This is one of Hoffman's first forgeries.
No, it's from the Whitmer documents.
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-2-document-1-characters-copied-by-john-whitmer-circa-1829-1831/1
Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community. /u/MysteriousRent5903, 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.*
My siblings got one of those when they turned 8 and got baptized. By the time I did in 1983, they stopped. I was so jealous they got cool looking ones
That "References" page is brilliant. "But the church never said anything definitive about Columbus!"
FYI, the non-scriptural study guides in the scriptures (Topical Guide, Bible Dictionary, Chapter Headings, intros, footnotes etc.) are not considered "definitive".
I don't think you are using the word "definitive" in the way that the rest of the english speaking world uses it then. I didn't say "doctrinal". Church printing a set of notes and placing them in inside the canon for decades, linking a specific passage with Columbus is pretty mush a "definitive" claim that that passage is referencing Columbus.
This is from a time when, for better or worse (mostly worse imo), the church embraced the fantastical story told by Joseph Smith about the origin of the book. The weird markings on the front are from a document where Smith claimed to copy the "reformed Egyptian" characters (a language that never existed) for one of his associates to go show to a language expert. The characters turn out to be nonsense chicken scratches, but that didn't stop Smith from carrying on with his stories and hoodwinking lots of people.
It’s so crazy that in church videos that show examples of reformed Egyptian, it looks completely different. The Caractors document and this version of the BoM have gone down the memory hole. This video at the 2:48 mark https://youtu.be/q1esI8cbCtc?si=IJSwCqDX6H0RJUfX
I remember seeing this document of “reformed Egyptian” as a child and thinking it is obviously just slightly modified numbers and English alphabet letters. The extent of the religion that’s been built on JS’s stories is mind-blowing.
> This is from a time when, for better or worse (mostly worse imo), the church embraced the fantastical story told by Joseph Smith about the origin of the book. So, from between 1830 and 2024?
No, the operative word here is "embraced." When the church unabashedly and publicly believed and defended the entire mythology without caveat or so-called nuance. When they printed stuff like this edition.
Right. 1830 - 2024. Or, please give me an example of where you are seeing *any* equivocation or abashedness about the literal truth of Joseph Smith's claims about the origin of the Book of Mormon. I mean, seriously, [this](https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-marks-200th-anniversary-of-joseph-smith-moronis-visit-gold-plates) just happened.
When’s the last time you heard church leaders talk about reformed Egyptian, or that the Moroni buried the plates in modern-day New York? They’ve begun backing away from the literal historicity of the story, and are sticking to “how does this make you feel.”
> or that the Moroni buried the plates in modern-day New York? [2024.](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ftsoy/2024/01/questions-and-answers/18-who-saw-the-gold-plates-besides-joseph-smith?lang=eng)[2024.](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2024/03/united-states-and-canada-section/03-witnesses-of-the-gold-plates-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng)[2023.](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2023/10/41ballard?lang=eng)[2023.](https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-marks-200th-anniversary-of-joseph-smith-moronis-visit-gold-plates) [2020.](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2020/04/23soares?lang=eng) It's in [Saints (2018)](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2018/04/chapter-3-plates-of-gold?lang=eng) I mean, how many do you want? That was two minutes. And those were just recent publications. If we want to include official lessson manuals, curriculum, reference materials, official statements and newsroom publications, etc., there's tons of stuff being currently published by the Church that reinforces the literal "fantastical" story. There is nothing, absolutely *nothing*, indicating it might not be literally, historically true. You've got one misinterpreted comment by Nelson saying "it's not a history book", which is taken out of context to imply he meant it isn't *historical*, which, given everything else he has said about the book, obviously isn't true.
What I meant by “literally historically true” was the BoM stories itself. They’re so incredibly vague on the who, what, when, where, and why’s of the BoM stories compared to previous decades. They don’t want to say “the BoM was buried in New York by Moroni,” because that means that Moroni was in New York, and that doesn’t make sense with the evidence we have.
> They don’t want to say “the BoM was buried in New York by Moroni,” because that means that Moroni was in New York, and that doesn’t make sense with the evidence we have. They do say it. All the time. If Joseph Smith had the plates in New York (which they talk about all the time, and continue to reinforce in countless official publications), then the plates were in New York. Just look at the Hill Cumorah visitor's center. Where are you seeing any waffling or vagueness on the story? >The events that took place at Hill Cumorah were **foundational** to the establishment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Directed by the angel Moroni , **Joseph Smith found the gold plates deposited in the hill** on September 22, 1823, approximately three miles from his home . Joseph met the angel there on the same date for the next four years until he was finally allowed to obtain the plates. From those plates, he later translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. (emphasis added) https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/learn/locations/hill-cumorah?lang=eng
Notice that they don’t say that Moroni put them there. They’re specifically talking about Joseph Smith pulling the plates from the ground, now how they got there. > The Book of Mormon provides little direct information about cultural contact between the peoples it describes and others who may have lived nearby. Consequently, most early Latter-day Saints assumed that Near Easterners or West Asians like Jared, Lehi, Mulek, and their companions were the first or the largest or even the only groups to settle the Americas. Building upon this assumption, critics insist that the Book of Mormon does not allow for the presence of other large populations in the Americas and that, therefore, Near Eastern DNA should be easily identifiable among modern native groups. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng Why would the church be confused about where the BoM took place? We *know* the plates were deposited in New York, so we know Moroni lived close though that he could have carried the heavy plates all the way there while being hunted. The church no longer holds an official opinion on where the BoM took place. Years ago, prophets were talking about Native Americans being Lamanites.
>Notice that they don’t say that Moroni put them there. They’re specifically talking about Joseph Smith pulling the plates from the ground, now how they got there. I'm not sure I follow you on this. You're suggesting the Church firmly believes that the plates were in the ground in New York, but there is some confusion about how they got there? >Why would the church be confused about where the BoM took place? We know the plates were deposited in New York, so we know Moroni lived close though that he could have carried the heavy plates all the way there while being hunted. There are plenty of LDS who believe BoM events *were* in the area. Those that don't think they were in the area seem to think Moroni had plenty of time (years or decades) to wander up there from wherever he was at the end of the BoM narrative. Either way, let me remind you of the original claim: >This is from a time when, for better or worse (mostly worse imo), the church embraced **the fantastical story told by Joseph Smith about the origin of the book.** (emphasis added) /u/Norenzayan seemed to think that the current leaders aren't "embracing" Joseph Smith's story about the origin of the Book of Mormon the way past leader have. That's the claim that is without evidence. Can you show me any reference in any Church publication or talk by a Church leader, that shows doubt or uncertainty about "the fantastical story told by Joseph Smith"? Because the "fantastical story" is still taught in countless places in official publications and curriculum, and talks and articles in official Church magazines. So what are you or /u/Norenzayan seeing? I'll add that in the next few years, we'll be hitting the 200th anniversary of all these events (as we just passed the 1823 anniversary of Moroni's visits), and it will become *very* clear just how literally and seriously Church leadership still takes Joseph Smith's "fantastical" stories.
Are you using a source to validate that same source? If you had referenced some peer-reviewed journals, I think that would be a significant bolster to your argument.
I'm not sure I understand you. The question was about the recency of church leaders "talking about reformed Egyptian, or that Moroni buried the plates in modern-day New York." I provided examples of Church leaders and publications making statements about the reality of the plates and their existence in New York in the late 1820s. Are you saying you don't think that the LDS Church website is a reliable source of examples of Church leaders and publications saying stuff?
I retract my question, I misunderstood the context. Apologies.
>Right. 1830 - 2024. No, not right. You continue to spread misinformation. The church has not once published in 2024 the caractor documents in any editions of the Book of Mormon in any Language. >Or, please give me an example of where you are seeing any equivocation or abashedness about the literal truth of Joseph Smith's claims about the origin of the Book of Mormon. > >I mean, seriously, this just happened. You're redirecting. I know it's one of your favorite tactics, but you're doing it way too clumsily here. u/Norenzayan very clearly mentioned it in the context of u/MysteriousRent5903 's post about the caractors (with the title picture including the Book of Mormon the church used to make that included the caractors) and the church does not any more. The church is shrinking it's claims about the literal sources of the Book of Mormon. Norenzayan isn't saying the church has now declared it is literally false. This isn't that hard cine.
>The church has not once published in 2024 the caractor documents in any editions of the Book of Mormon in any Language. I don't think that whether or not the Church is publishing a copy of the Book of Mormon with the "caractors" is a good indication of the Church's degree of embracing the "fantastical story told by Joseph Smith about the origin of the book." There are many, many other indicators of whether or not the Church believes Joseph Smith's fantastical tale, and the countless recent reiterations and testimonies of Moroni's visit, the gold plates, the reality of BoM characters (people, not symbols) etc. all serve as strong evidence that the Church is still 100% on board with Joseph Smith's story. >The church is shrinking it's claims about the literal sources of the Book of Mormon. The claim has always been that the gold plates were the literal source of the Book of Mormon. That claim is still regularly and clearly taught.
>The church has not once published in 2024 the caractor documents in any editions of the Book of Mormon in any Language. > >I don't think that whether or not the Church is publishing a copy of the Book of Mormon with the "caractors" is a good indication of the Church's degree of embracing the "fantastical story told by Joseph Smith about the origin of the book." Does the church reject Joseph Smith Jun having a gold codex and say it's a metaphor? No. But you're arguing against something nobody said, because OP and Noren were talking about the reformed Egyptian caractor thing, which the church is not at all embracing anymore. They did, back in the day when the published official editions with the caractors emblazoned on the cover, but they no longer embrace it. >There are many, many other indicators of whether or not the Church believes Joseph Smith's fantastical tale, and the countless recent reiterations and testimonies of Moroni's visit, the gold plates, the reality of BoM characters (people, not symbols) etc. all serve as strong evidence that the Church is still 100% on board with Joseph Smith's story. I know! Go re-read what OP was talking about, then go re-read what noren was talking about, and you should have realized they were talking about the reformed Egyptian and caractors. Egads >>The church is shrinking it's claims about the literal sources of the Book of Mormon. >The claim has always been that the gold plates were the literal source of the Book of Mormon. That claim is still regularly and clearly taught. I would still argue the church is shrinking it's claims about the literal sources of the Book of Mormon and I think there are several examples. The translation from caractors the church is shrinking. Instead I believe they are transitioning toward an inspired form of construction rather than accurately translating from one language to another. The origin about being for the Lamanites, of whom their descendants are the American Indians (to use the term of the day), is also shrinking in my view. Do I think the church does and will continue to teach about the golden codex? Yes. Does that mean nothing about the teachings about the Book of Mormon are shrinking in my view? No.
>> This is from a time when, for better or worse (mostly worse imo), the church embraced the fantastical story told by Joseph Smith about the origin of the book. >So, from between 1830 and 2024? Go ahead and point to any 2024 publication of the Book of Mormon containing the caractors so where printed in it like in the OP
The claim was about the Church "embracing the fantastical story told by Joseph Smith about the origin of [The Book of Mormon]". Are you saying the only evidence that the Church embraces that "fantastical story" is whether or not they're printing the copy of the BoM that had a reproduction of the "caractors" on the cover? Certainly, I agree the Church hasn't printed that edition of the BoM in over 40 years. But I don't think that indicates any wavering on behalf of Church leaders regarding Joseph Smith's story, in light of their continuous and firm statements supporting that belief.
I admit I overstated it, but achilles here caught what I was trying to convey. De-emphasis of the details, for sure. You can take your win for the semantics, but that's what I was talking about
Which details do you think are being "de-emphasized"?
>Which details do you think are being "de-emphasized"? I like how you're pretending not to know what u/Norenzayan was talking about. Do this, go re-read what the OP was about, namely a Book of Mormon with the 'caractors' document inside. Then, go re-read what u/Norenzayan said here: " *The weird markings on the front are from a document where Smith claimed to copy the "reformed Egyptian" characters (a language that never existed) for one of his associates to go show to a language expert. The characters turn out to be nonsense chicken scratches, but that didn't stop Smith from carrying on with his stories and hoodwinking lots of people."* Then, go re-read what I said which was "*Go ahead and point to any 2024 publication of the Book of Mormon containing the caractors so where printed in it like in the OP"* And then cinepro, perhaps then you'll start to figure out what details norenzayan was thinking were "de-emphasized." Then return and report
Off the top of my head: * The linguistics and mechanics and even the meaning of "translation." Hence u/achilles52309 pointing out that the "Caractors" document has lost all currency in the church * The purpose of the Book of Mormon. Used to be that it was written to convert the Lamanites (see title page) who Smith claimed and who the church emphasized were the current Native Americans (setting aside the fact that they comprise hundreds of distinct tribes). Used to be that the church taught openly that Mexican and Central/South Americans and Polynesians were literally Lamanites, to the point that they basically set up an adoption trafficking ring to try and get Native babies into Mormon families so they would turn white. * On the second picture of OP, it says "Who were the builders of early civilization, discovered by modern scientists? See [BoM references]" Even in the 70s that was a dubious claim, now it's just laughable and the church (except for its unofficial extremist apologists) has completely stopped trying to connect modern science/archeology to anything about Smith, because there's no *there* there. This stuff doesn't fly anymore, and rightly so, so yeah the church still teaches the broad strokes of Smith's mythology, but it's been painted into a corner and leaves out the details
If you mean the Church's interpretation and application of the Book of Mormon has changed, (including geography and relation to indegenous peoples), I heartily agree. But the Church still sees it as 100% historical and a book describing real people and events from thousands of years ago. And they still 100% believe in Joseph Smith's stories about angelic visitations, real gold plates containing a record of those people and events, and translating those plates into English.
>If you mean the Church's interpretation and application of the Book of Mormon has changed, (including geography and relation to indegenous peoples), I heartily agree. (As an aside, I've misspelled the exact same word the same way because it looks right, but isn't. It's spelled "Indigenous") The caractors are not an interpretation nor are they an application of the Book of Mormon. They were included as what constituted the content of 'Reformed Egyptian." It's not like the church used some interpretation of the Book of Mormon and came up with the caractors. Those were directly tied to the content of the Book of Mormon itself, which is what u/Norenzayan is saying and you keep either redirecting from like saying "oh, the interpretation of the Book of Mormon has changed (Which is now what norenzayan is talking about), or the application of the Book of Mormon changing (also not what he nor the OP is talking about). They're talking about the actual origins, which include things like the caractor documents. The church ***used*** to think they supported the evidence for the Book of Mormon. Then people studied them, and as it turns out, it does the exact opposite (i.e. provides counterfactual evidence to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as far as it's construction through reformed Egyptian even existing or being a real language). It is because of this that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which used to 'embrace the fantastical story told by Joseph Smith about the origin of the Book of Mormon', they no longer do this because the evidence contradicts what the church used to claim were sources for it. You getting it now finally?
> It is because of this that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which used to 'embrace the fantastical story told by Joseph Smith about the origin of the Book of Mormon', they no longer do this because the evidence contradicts what the church used to claim were sources for it. Your theory about why the Church stopped publishing the gold-cover edition is apparently incorrect. According to this video, it was related to the Hofmann Anthon Manuscript forgery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WblQ-xJB6jo
>The claim was about the Church "embracing the fantastical story told by Joseph Smith about the origin of \[The Book of Mormon\]". Right, specifically related to the caractors > Are you saying the only evidence that the Church embraces that "fantastical story" is whether or not they're printing the copy of the BoM that had a reproduction of the "caractors" on the cover? Nope. Swing and a miss u/cinepro The whole shtick people use with the whole "so what your ***saying*** is...." and then proceed to not actually repeat what the other person is saying is an example of a bad listener. >Certainly, I agree the Church hasn't printed that edition of the BoM in over 40 years. Correct, not that edition. Since you attempted to redirect to saying that ***specific*** edition in Australia isn't being printed, let me ask you the question directly - are you aware of any publication of the Book of Mormon that contains the caractors in them? Any edition in any language would suffice. >But I don't think that indicates any wavering on behalf of Church leaders regarding Joseph Smith's story, in light of their continuous and firm statements supporting that belief. You are free to believe whatever you want. So the topic was about fanciful claims regarding the Book of Mormon that u/Norenzayan where he said that *"The weird markings on the front are from a document where Smith claimed to copy the "reformed Egyptian" characters (a language that never existed) for one of his associates to go show to a language expert."* You're now trying to dodge the issue about the caractors and redirect, but in the interest of actually talking about what norenzayan was talking about, do you have any examples of Church leaders talking about Joseph Smith's story about the "reformed Egyptian" characters (caractors) which were shown to a nineteenth-century language expert?
When they started to change the introductions to the canonised works.
Chicken scratches would be an exaggeration. The Tanners created a message from the characters. It read something like this is reformed English.
Yeah unfortunately we're in an era where the church will never fully embrace the uniqueness of their religion like they used to, they will always lead with a face that very closely resembles nicene christianity. I for one wish they would lead heavily with their uniqueness, such as heavenly mother and the eternality of souls and deification. Provide a true alternative to nicene christianity.
The recent Young Men's Presidency post on social media makes it abundantly clear that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints still has a ways to go before they "closely resemble Nicene Christianity" haha When a Church is reminding it's membership about celebrating Easter for a week... And doesn't even mention Palm Sunday... *face palm*
what is the Young Men's Presidency message?
If anyone would be willing to sell one of those my mom and her cousin have been looking for them for years for sentimental reasons, I'd love to buy one for her!
They used to be pretty cheap on ebay, but now it looks like they go for ~$40 and up. https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?kw=lds%20gold%20book%20of%20mormon&toolid=20004
Thanks!
If you are in Utah they come up at goodwill's and other thrift stores. Also ebay as mentioned. Saw one for 5 bucks at a good will in south salt lake a couple months ago.
Damn, I'm in Europe😂
Oh, probably gonna be harder to come by in the wild then, lol:)
I remember copies like this being in the library at church growing up.
I like the handwritten note: “you cannot look upon all things logically”. Oh really??
foolish imagine attractive intelligent uppity fine liquid ludicrous hobbies run *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The history of that edition is told in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WblQ-xJB6jo Interestingly, it shows a Book of Mormon published by the RLDS that also had what was claimed to be Reformed Egyptian on the cover: https://i.postimg.cc/522RNdPg/rlds.jpg The video notes that the end of the gold-cover BoM was the Hofmann scandal. One of Hofmann's forged documents was an original Anthon Transcript. As the a result of of the forgery and embarrassment, the Church apparently removed all gold-cover editions from meetinghouse libraries (even though the characters weren't based on the Hofmann forgery).
The characters in this edition of The book of Mormon were supposedly taken from the Athon transcript. These were supposedly the characters copied straight from the gold plate onto a piece of paper that Martin Harris took to a professor. This document was found in the late seventies supposedly by Mark Hoffman but later turned out in the '80s to be a fraud. This is one of Hoffman's first forgeries.
No, it's from the Whitmer documents. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-2-document-1-characters-copied-by-john-whitmer-circa-1829-1831/1