Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 65

Thread: 19th Century Photo of Joseph Smith’s “Caractors” Discovered

  1. #1
    grindael
    Guest

    Default 19th Century Photo of Joseph Smith’s “Caractors” Discovered

    This is about a 19th Century photo of the "Caracters" document that I discovered last year and thought I would share ....

    http://mormonitemusings.com/2013/08/...rs-discovered/

  2. #2
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grindael View Post
    This is about a 19th Century photo of the "Caracters" document that I discovered last year and thought I would share ....

    http://mormonitemusings.com/2013/08/...rs-discovered/
    Attachment 182 Click on the image to enlarge..

    When I was a boy I made up "secret codes" like this.. IHS jim

  3. #3
    grindael
    Guest

    Default

    Hi James,

    I see you still have your sense of humor...

  4. #4
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grindael View Post
    Hi James,

    I see you still have your sense of humor...
    How I WISH that it was just funny.. None of these characters have any reference at all to Egyptian. As I have shown they are much closer to English.. Here compare the two...

    Attachment 183 Attachment 184

    Just where are these anywhere similar.. This supports the idea that mormonism is sad deathly sad, not funny, not funny at all.. IHS jim

  5. #5
    RealFakeHair
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Banta View Post
    How I WISH that it was just funny.. None of these characters have any reference at all to Egyptian. As I have shown they are much closer to English.. Here compare the two...

    Attachment 183 Attachment 184

    Just where are these anywhere similar.. This supports the idea that mormonism is sad deathly sad, not funny, not funny at all.. IHS jim
    All the proof in the world wont change the minds of the LDSinc TBM. I was watching the BYU channel this mormon and stand amazed even today just how much they believe in the fairytale book of mormon. There they were these five men having discussion about the book as if it really really happened. As if it were an historical book of importance to the rest of the world.
    Hint, TBM out there, it is a joke, the Book of Mormon is at best a poorly written novel. I guess this is why I love to study mormonism; it show alot about our human brain and how it works or not when it comes to religion and belief. Cognitive dissonance working overtime!

  6. #6
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealFakeHair View Post
    All the proof in the world wont change the minds of the LDSinc TBM. I was watching the BYU channel this mormon and stand amazed even today just how much they believe in the fairytale book of mormon. There they were these five men having discussion about the book as if it really really happened. As if it were an historical book of importance to the rest of the world.
    Hint, TBM out there, it is a joke, the Book of Mormon is at best a poorly written novel. I guess this is why I love to study mormonism; it show alot about our human brain and how it works or not when it comes to religion and belief. Cognitive dissonance working overtime!
    I so want the LDS to show how their BofM was given to them a record in the language of my father (Lehi), which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians (1 Nephi 1:2). Shouldn't we see some of the Egyptian characters in the example of the characters Smith sent to Professor Anton? But as anyone can see these characters are better described as "Deformed English" rather than "Reformed Egyptian" IHS jim

  7. #7
    RealFakeHair
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Banta View Post
    I so want the LDS to show how their BofM was given to them a record in the language of my father (Lehi), which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians (1 Nephi 1:2). Shouldn't we see some of the Egyptian characters in the example of the characters Smith sent to Professor Anton? But as anyone can see these characters are better described as "Deformed English" rather than "Reformed Egyptian" IHS jim
    On the BYU channel today the Moderator asked, "How could anyone not believe the Book of Mormon, because it was written in only 60 days?"
    Answer, because it reads like it was only written in 60 days!

  8. #8
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealFakeHair View Post
    On the BYU channel today the Moderator asked, "How could anyone not believe the Book of Mormon, because it was written in only 60 days?"
    Answer, because it reads like it was only written in 60 days!
    Really only 60 days? The conversion of Alma the Younger was all new, right? Lehi's dream (According to Lucy Mac Smith, Joseph's mother) was Joseph Smith Sr dream.. The m***ive copying of both the Old and New Testaments (Including all initialize words), The stories Joseph regaled his family with long before he had the Gold plates make 60 days seem kind of long.. Most of the story was all put together he just needed someone who could write to take it all down.. IHS jim

  9. #9
    RealFakeHair
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Banta View Post
    Really only 60 days? The conversion of Alma the Younger was all new, right? Lehi's dream (According to Lucy Mac Smith, Joseph's mother) was Joseph Smith Sr dream.. The m***ive copying of both the Old and New Testaments (Including all initialize words), The stories Joseph regaled his family with long before he had the Gold plates make 60 days seem kind of long.. Most of the story was all put together he just needed someone who could write to take it all down.. IHS jim
    I wonder if the phrase,( and it came to p***.) was in any of the Smith's dreams?
    As many times as it appears in the Book of Mormon it may explain why Smith family were so weird.

  10. #10
    MacG
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Banta View Post
    Really only 60 days? The conversion of Alma the Younger was all new, right? Lehi's dream (According to Lucy Mac Smith, Joseph's mother) was Joseph Smith Sr dream.. The m***ive copying of both the Old and New Testaments (Including all initialize words), The stories Joseph regaled his family with long before he had the Gold plates make 60 days seem kind of long.. Most of the story was all put together he just needed someone who could write to take it all down.. IHS jim
    I would think that the grammar and syntax following the KJV in thousands of places would be enough to prove plagiarism. I mean if the KJV translation team (not inspired by the HG) made grammar mistakes then ok. Through time they have been corrected. It would be unlike that another uninspired English team 100 years later would make those very same mistakes in type and quan***y translating from the very same documents. But along comes someone who translates from a third foreign language about a different land and people and it contains not insignificant portions of another text but also the same grammar mistakes that uninspired the 16th century English translators made and some how that is proof of Divine guidance. To me if it was a Divinely inspired translation would it not be grammar mistake free? If it was Divinely inspired and the earthen vessel is allowed some mistakes how making the same exact mistakes a proof of Divine inspiration?

    In a court of law or any college paper it would be plagiarism.
    Last edited by MacG; 08-28-2013 at 01:06 AM. Reason: and it contains not significant portions of another text " should read "and it contains not INsignificant portions of..."

  11. #11
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacG View Post
    I would think that the grammar and syntax following the KJV in thousands of places would be enough to prove plagiarism. I mean if the KJV translation team (not inspired by the HG) made grammar mistakes then ok. Through time they have been corrected. It would be unlike that another uninspired English team 100 years later would make those very same mistakes in type and quan***y translating from the very same documents. But along comes someone who translates from a third foreign language about a different land and people and it contains not significant portions of another text but also the same grammar mistakes that uninspired the 16th century English translators made and some how that is proof of Divine guidance. To me if it was a Divinely inspired translation would it not be grammar mistake free? If it was Divinely inspired and the earthen vessel is allowed some mistakes how making the same exact mistakes a proof of Divine inspiration?

    In a court of law or any college paper it would be plagiarism.
    I can't rep, you on this so I'll just have to say.. I AGREE.. IHS jim

  12. #12
    Snow Patrol
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacG View Post
    I would think that the grammar and syntax following the KJV in thousands of places would be enough to prove plagiarism. I mean if the KJV translation team (not inspired by the HG) made grammar mistakes then ok. Through time they have been corrected. It would be unlike that another uninspired English team 100 years later would make those very same mistakes in type and quan***y translating from the very same documents. But along comes someone who translates from a third foreign language about a different land and people and it contains not significant portions of another text but also the same grammar mistakes that uninspired the 16th century English translators made and some how that is proof of Divine guidance. To me if it was a Divinely inspired translation would it not be grammar mistake free? If it was Divinely inspired and the earthen vessel is allowed some mistakes how making the same exact mistakes a proof of Divine inspiration?

    In a court of law or any college paper it would be plagiarism.
    It has been a while since I've been in college but from what I remember as long as you give credit then it is not plagiarism, right?

  13. #13
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snow Patrol View Post
    It has been a while since I've been in college but from what I remember as long as you give credit then it is not plagiarism, right?
    I own an 1830 replica of the original BofM. There is no credit their for the m***ive amounts of Biblical scripture Smith added to the BofM.. Credit has to be given in the first addition not later telling people to compare the more recent work with the older publication.. Smith just plagiarized without giving credit.. IHS jim

  14. #14
    MacG
    Guest

    Default

    Let's say for the sake of argument there is no plagiarism. There are two predominant languages which are translated into 17th century English, KJV. It was unusual at the time for its common man street vernacular. By the nineteenth century other translations from the same original languages into nineteenth century English were produced not sounding like stale two hundred year old common English. Maybe not so unusual is that another story of the main protagonist comes to light in the 19th century set in another country in yet a third language not native to the land where the story takes place.

    What is unusual is that this third language has portions translated by a man speaking from birth 19th century English translating a character based language into 17th century English - the "Authorized" language of the long dead King. OK it may have been that language that the translator was most familiar with for his love of the scriptures and was so influenced by it. But this is the hardest part for me. The KJV is 17th century English translation of a known ancient middle eastern alphabet based language and a known ancient western alpha-numeric based language when along comes along a 19th century English translation of an unknown ancient character based language telling a third story which has portions within the translation that match word-for-word, spelling and grammar mistakes of 17th century translations included, of two ancient and disparate alpha-numeric languages.

    I think I lost myself there a bit. In their respective tongues, try having a German man write about guy which he went to school with and a Spanish man who went to school with the same guy and the same school at the same time. Now have a Chinese man write about the same guy that he went school with in another country at a different time. Have studied men translate the German and the Spanish into English but have the Chinese translated by smart guy without the credentials of man and also has no knowledge of Chinese much less of a dialect that few are familiar with. What are the chances that the translation of third account will match word-for-word, significant portions of each of the German and Spanish accounts of their scholastic time together with the same guy? Do not forget that the studied men made some spelling and grammar mistakes in English and the unlearned translator of the Chinese made the very same mistakes.
    Last edited by MacG; 08-29-2013 at 12:12 PM. Reason: date corrections noted by Jamesabove:)

  15. #15
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacG View Post
    Let's say for the sake of argument there is no plagiarism. There are two predominant languages which are translated into 16th century English, KJV. It was unusual at the time for its common man street vernacular. By the nineteenth century other translations from the same original languages into nineteenth century English were produced not sounding like stale three hundred year old common English. Maybe not so unusual is that another story of the main protagonist comes to light in the 19th century set in another country in yet a third language not native to the land where the story takes place.

    What is unusual is that this third language has portions translated by a man speaking from birth 19th century English translating a character based language into 16th century English - the "Authorized" language of the long dead King. OK it may have been that language that the translator was most familiar with for his love of the scriptures and was so influenced by it. But this is the hardest part for me. The KJV is 16th century English translation of a known ancient middle eastern alphabet based language and a known ancient western alpha-numeric based language when along comes along a 19th century English translation of an unknown ancient character based language telling a third story which has portions within the translation that match word-for-word, spelling and grammar mistakes of 16th century translations included, of two ancient and disparate alpha-numeric languages.

    I think I lost myself there a bit. In their respective tongues, try having a German man write about guy which he went to school with and a Spanish man who went to school with the same guy and the same school at the same time. Now have a Chinese man write about the same guy that he went school with in another country at a different time. Have studied men translate the German and the Spanish into English but have the Chinese translated by smart guy without the credentials of man and also has no knowledge of Chinese much less of a dialect that few are familiar with. What are the chances that the translation of third account will match word-for-word, significant portions of each of the German and Spanish accounts of their scholastic time together with the same guy? Do not forget that the studied men made some spelling and grammar mistakes in English and the unlearned translator of the Chinese made the very same mistakes.
    Other then the KJV being completed in the 17th century (1611), I fully agree with your claims here.. The only way this could have happened is if God really did give the translation of the BofM. If that were the case wouldn't the 1830 BofM have been given in perfect 19th century (1830) English? But no there have been nearly 4,000 changes made to the BofM most of which were repair the English syntax putting it into proper English for the day and removing the backwoods manner of speech. No longer does it say that Amulek went "a journeying to see a very near kindred" (1830 Page 249), now he "was journeying to see a very near kindred" (Alma 10:7). If Smith didn't make up the wording he used in the BofM, if God gave him each and every word, then God speaks English like a common hillbilly. God was so bad at translation into proper English that in later editions of the BofM it required 3,913 changes.. The God Christian worship is a perfect being. He makes ZERO errors. He never requires mere men to come behind Him to correct His mistakes.. IHS jim

  16. #16
    MacG
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Banta View Post
    Other then the KJV being completed in the 17th century (1611), I fully agree with your claims here.. The only way this could have happened is if God really did give the translation of the BofM. If that were the case wouldn't the 1830 BofM have been given in perfect 19th century (1830) English? But no there have been nearly 4,000 changes made to the BofM most of which were repair the English syntax putting it into proper English for the day and removing the backwoods manner of speech. No longer does it say that Amulek went "a journeying to see a very near kindred" (1830 Page 249), now he "was journeying to see a very near kindred" (Alma 10:7). If Smith didn't make up the wording he used in the BofM, if God gave him each and every word, then God speaks English like a common hillbilly. God was so bad at translation into proper English that in later editions of the BofM it required 3,913 changes.. The God Christian worship is a perfect being. He makes ZERO errors. He never requires mere men to come behind Him to correct His mistakes.. IHS jim
    I corrected the dates, thanks you. I was thinking in the late hours of the Gutenberg press...
    Last edited by MacG; 08-29-2013 at 10:06 AM. Reason: Dating correction noted by James in post #24

  17. #17
    Snow Patrol
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Banta View Post
    I own an 1830 replica of the original BofM. There is no credit their for the m***ive amounts of Biblical scripture Smith added to the BofM.. Credit has to be given in the first addition not later telling people to compare the more recent work with the older publication.. Smith just plagiarized without giving credit.. IHS jim
    The m***ive amounts you are talking about are probably the sections in 2 Nephi that quote Isaiah. In 2 Nephi 6:4 it says

    4 And now, behold, I would speak unto you concerning things which are, and which are to come; wherefore, I will read you the words of Isaiah. And they are the words which my brother has desired that I should speak unto you. And I speak unto you for your sakes, that ye may learn and glorify the name of your God.

  18. #18
    nrajeffreturns
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snow Patrol View Post
    The m***ive amounts you are talking about are probably the sections in 2 Nephi that quote Isaiah. In 2 Nephi 6:4 it says

    4 And now, behold, I would speak unto you concerning things which are, and which are to come; wherefore, I will read you the words of Isaiah. And they are the words which my brother has desired that I should speak unto you. And I speak unto you for your sakes, that ye may learn and glorify the name of your God.
    Yup. If Mac were to say, "And now I will tell you what Walter Martin once wrote...." and then proceeded to recite what WM had written, it wouldn't be fair to Mac to accuse him of plagiarism.....
    Last edited by nrajeffreturns; 08-28-2013 at 08:41 PM.

  19. #19
    MacG
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns View Post
    Yup. I Mac were to say, "And now I will tell you what Walter Martin once wrote...." and then proceeded to recite what WM had written, it wouldn't be fair to Mac to accuse him of plagiarism.....
    " I will read you the words of Isaiah. "

    Not being as well read as you two in the book of Nephi, please tell me which Isaiah p***ages he read after "I will read..."

  20. #20
    nrajeffreturns
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacG View Post
    " I will read you the words of Isaiah. "

    Not being as well read as you two in the book of Nephi, please tell me which Isaiah p***ages he read after "I will read..."
    Well, if you're making the accusation of plagiarism from Isaiah p***ages, shouldn't you already know the p***ages in question?

  21. #21
    MacG
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns View Post
    Well, if you're making the accusation of plagiarism from Isaiah p***ages, shouldn't you already know the p***ages in question?
    My apologies, see post #9

  22. #22
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snow Patrol View Post
    The m***ive amounts you are talking about are probably the sections in 2 Nephi that quote Isaiah. In 2 Nephi 6:4 it says

    4 And now, behold, I would speak unto you concerning things which are, and which are to come; wherefore, I will read you the words of Isaiah. And they are the words which my brother has desired that I should speak unto you. And I speak unto you for your sakes, that ye may learn and glorify the name of your God.
    That is a quote how about these:

    In 3 Nephi 13:27, we read: "Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?" see Matthew 6:27 for the p***age this was plagiarized from.

    The Sermon on the mount is given almost word from word in 3 Nephi 12.. There is no reference at all to Matthew in these writings.. These are too close to the KJV text of Matthew to be considered anything but plagiarism.. IHS jim

  23. #23
    Snow Patrol
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Banta View Post
    That is a quote how about these:

    In 3 Nephi 13:27, we read: "Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?" see Matthew 6:27 for the p***age this was plagiarized from.

    The Sermon on the mount is given almost word from word in 3 Nephi 12.. There is no reference at all to Matthew in these writings.. These are too close to the KJV text of Matthew to be considered anything but plagiarism.. IHS jim
    You do know who was speaking, right? If God does not change, why would Christ give a different version of the sermon? This doesn't mean it is plagiarism.

  24. #24
    RealFakeHair
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snow Patrol View Post
    You do know who was speaking, right? If God does not change, why would Christ give a different version of the sermon? This doesn't mean it is plagiarism.
    As the BYU channel turns, or something. On todays progam it was once again, (Discussions on the Book of Mormon.)
    One of the mentally dificient members of the round table quoted a verse from the Book of Mormon that went something like this. "The Word is mightier than the sword." And then one of the make believe jews in the crowd asked by. "Sword, what's a sword?" lol

  25. #25
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snow Patrol View Post
    You do know who was speaking, right? If God does not change, why would Christ give a different version of the sermon? This doesn't mean it is plagiarism.
    Then it is your contention that Jesus spoke the King's English? That He used Thee and Thou. Since the whole of the BofM is written in that style it can only be ***umed that such is the case.. OR, Smith in his need to have the BofM be seen as "Another Testament" wrote it in that style.. Last I heard in the 19th century such language was limited to the Quakers..

    Jeff wanted to see where the BofM was plagiarized from the KJV of the Bible I showed Him.. You want to say that Jesus taught this to the Nephites, fine. Show Biblically that Jesus ever taught He would appear to the populations of the Americas.. The other sheep Jesus has are clearly the one who are not of that fold, not Israel. THAT MEAN THE GENTILES.. Not some other Israelite people.. There is no way of showing that Jesus ever walked the Americas other than the stories from the BofM.. There is no evidence that any of the BofM actually happened. It's all hinges on your feelings and the one man testimony of Joseph Smith. who made a living tricking men into the idea that he could find them buried treasure.. Not the best person to trust with your eternal destiny.. IHS jim

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •