Greg Trimble asks… So… You Think the Book of Mormon is a Fraud?

Greg Trimble starts his very powerful blog article that has already been shared 95,000 times…

I can still remember the exact spot I was sitting when I knew the Book of Mormon was true. I was in a beach chair on my balcony in Corona Del Mar, California waiting to go surfing. I had just recently started a serious investigation of the Church when I first began reading the Book of Mormon. As I began my study…I realized that the most important thing I could do is find out whether or not the Book of Mormon was true.

Greg Trimble asks, "So you think the Book of Mormon is a Fraud?"

Greg Trimble asks, "So you think the Book of Mormon is a Fraud?"

If you’re ever having doubts about the restoration or about Joseph Smith, just read the Book of Mormon and ask your self these 11 questions:

  1. Could an uneducated boy come up with 531 pages of ancient scripture on his own that was historically accurate and prophetic in nature?
  2. Would it be possible for that boy to understand and include ancient Hebrew literary writing styles such as idioms and Chiasmus, some of which weren’t even discovered until long after Joseph Smith was gone ?
  3. How would Joseph Smith have been able to know so much about the Middle East, especially the Arabian Peninsula where Lehi and his family traveled? The book includes findings in that region that no one had discovered yet.
  4. How could Joseph Smith come up with roughly 200 new names in the Book of Mormon and then have them turn out to be Semitic in nature?
  5. If you think Joseph Smith couldn’t have written this book, then where did it come from? If one says the devil put him up to it…then why would Satan want to publish another testament of Jesus Christ and a book that does nothing but promote righteousness. Jesus said that a house divided against itself would fall.
  6. Who were the “other sheep” that would hear Jesus’s voice in John 10:16?
  7. Why are there volumes of books written by non-LDS authors stating that Christ came and visited the America’s a couple thousand years ago just like it says in 3rd Nephi? (See Example “He Walked The America’s”) How would Joseph Smith have known this when at the time no one even considered it?
  8. If we have the stick of Judah (record of the Jews or the Bible), then where is the stick of Joseph that is referenced in Ezekiel 37:15-20? The Book of Mormon is the only explanation for this scripture. Lehi was a descendant of Joseph. Think Joseph Smith could have gotten that right by sheer chance?
  9. How could there be so many witnesses of the Book of Mormon and the plates and not one of them deny their testimony even when some of them became bitter toward Joseph Smith? With so many people involved…a hoax of this magnitude could never go uncovered.
  10. How could the Book of Mormon never contradict itself while being an extremely complex book? After all these years…someone would have found something…but no.

National Geographic Shares Native Americans Come from Europe and Middle East

Brian Handwerk, of National Geographic, published an article saying nearly “one-third of Native American genes come from west Eurasian people linked to the Middle East and Europe, rather than entirely from East Asians as previously thought, according to a newly sequenced genome.”

One third of Native Americans came from Europe and the Middle East - says National Geographic. PHOTOGRAPH BY ROLAND W. REED, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC

One third of Native Americans came from Europe and the Middle East - says National Geographic. PHOTOGRAPH BY ROLAND W. REED, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC

The problem comes when he mentions an arm bone of a 24,000 year old Siberian youth. The DNA dating method used is very questionable. More recent methods using mitochondrial DNA are much more accurate.

Here are comments from this article and my responses that may be interesting…

Ken Krogue The DNA shows the same thing. They seem to have come from the middle east and europe about 600 BC.
Bruce Longson Are you trying to say Laminites were real?
Ken Krogue I’m not saying, the data is… smile emoticon
Jacob Yingling very interesting
Ken Krogue And there is a very specific group that the DNA says is Haplo Group X that matches exactly a population that lived in Israel that landed on what looks like the Florida peninsula in about 600 BC and migrated north into the Great Lakes area and became a mighty people we known as the Mound Builders of Ohio/Pennsylvania and covered the entire Mississippi River basin to the Rocky Mountains. They even match today the DNA of about 100 Native American tribes that make up the Algonquin language group. These are the groups like the Fox and Sac tribe, and the Cherokee. My friend Talon Richey is part Cherokee and has this blood line so we have been looking into it big time. They have found steel forges, huge roads and fortresses, with massive earth works topped by timber walls and barricades. They also worked in some areas in cement.
Ken Krogue The other DNA groups are A, B, C, and D that are of another strain that also ties closely to areas of Mongolia and eastern Asia. They seem to have come from the other direction along the Aleutian Island when there seemed to be more of a land mass along that way. Very interesting. I’m wondering what DNA is found among the Polynesian Islands. Don’t know yet. I’m looking into it.
Ben Taylor 24,000 year old bone DNA, cool
Juliana Turner Though, and I’m very sorry to say this, the DNA in the bones founded were from 24,000 years ago. Not 2,600, as when Nephi left with his family.
Mena Seyed-Ashraf There’s no reason to assume this disproves anything because of the discrepancy in counting years. Who is to say that we count years the same way now as they were counted back then? In the old testament people were living to be 500 or more years old while living to be 100 is a goal today. Perhaps we count differently?

Ken Krogue Actually the data methodologies are in question. I have seen other research that shows it isn’t nearly that old. Not even close. There was two different research studies that went back the other directions checking DNA from the Russian Czars through exhuming their known family lines back several generations and checking DNA and found the dating mechanisms may be way off.

Ken Krogue If you are interested I can give you the two scientific journals that document this.
Mena Seyed-Ashraf I always figured that using carbon dating was a guess at best because circumstances and other chemical compounds could change or impact the breaking down process. I’d actually like that if you would share. Thank you!
Ken Krogue The research is about mitochondrian DNA which is inherited mother to daughter and mutates an order of magnitude faster than does nuclear DNA, making it particularly useful at shallow time depths – Evolutionary Anthropology 12:7-18, 2003
Ken Krogue The specific research is through the Czar Nicholas II of Russia and we know all of his ancestors quite a ways back. The rate of DNA mutation is shown to change between he and his current day ancestors is 26 times faster than previously thought. Most in the scientific community started with assumptions that actual science is showing to be incorrect. They assume that the original human ancestors had their origins in Africa around 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. They call “mitochondrial Eve” the first true human ancestor. But a very interesting article called “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock” in Science, 2 Jan 1998, Vol 279, no 5347, pp 28-29 says something rather shocking: “researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial Eve”– the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people–lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.”

Ken Krogue's photo.
Ken Krogue The second set of research backing up this claim that DNA dating verifies a completely different set of data comes from Trends in Ecology & Evolution (TREE) Vol 12, no 11, November 1997 and says “The hypothetical descent of mankind from ‘mitochondrial Eve’ has been much debated… some claim 800,000 years to be an upper limit, while most researchers suggest a date of approximately 200,000 years… They sequenced 610 basepairs of 357 individuals from 134 different mtDNA lineages… and found… such a high mutation rate would indicate that Eve lived about 6500 years ago – a figure clearly incompatible with current theories on human origins.”
Ken Krogue Mmmm 6000 years, 6500 years, that sounds very familiar and aligns exactly with a creationist model when you remove skewed perceptions and origins models and align strictly with the data. A lot of people malign science, but when it is really used it is pretty amazing.
Ken Krogue If you start with the wrong base assumptions, you end up with the wrong conclusions. You have to let science guide you even in your assumptions. But what do I know. I’m just an entrepreneur… not a scientist. Entrepreneurs are very practical. We focus on what actually works. We invent things that solve problems. Scientists try and explain why the things invented by technologists and entrepreneurs and inventors actually work.
Ken Krogue Science still can’t even explain everything about electricity…
Ken Krogue Or water…
Two of God’s best inventions… 🙂
Juliana Turner My comment wasn’t to disprove The Book of Mormon — I’m LDS, guys. But it just doesn’t actually prove it either. It’s a very interesting piece of research, that’s is all. You can’t rely in scientific research, dismissing whatever you don’t like about it. Anyway, I’m not a scientist, and obviously had no participation in the resaearch, so I can’t go deeper on this.
Ken Krogue True, unbiased science is actually pretty powerful…
Ken Krogue But its really hard to find… -Ken

New Research Defends the Language of The Book of Mormon

Excerpt from the August 21 article by Daniel Peterson of The Deseret News

Seeming “errors in grammar and diction,” particularly in the earliest manuscripts and first printed edition of the English Book of Mormon, have provided merriment for mocking critics since at least 1830.

The Book of Mormon - Deseret Book Archives

The Book of Mormon - Deseret Book Archives

Recent scholarly study of the book’s textual history, however, suggests that such derisive criticism is fundamentally misguided. Indeed, it may even demonstrate that, here as elsewhere, apparently “weak things” can “become strong” for those who believe (see Ether 12:27).

The pioneering research of Royal Skousen, a professor of English language and linguistics at Brigham Young University, for example, extending now over nearly three decades, provides arresting evidence that significant portions of the vocabulary of the Book of Mormon derive from the 1500s and the 1600s, and not, as one might expect, from the 1800s. Further, his latest studies have refined those dates even more exactly, showing that the vocabulary and meanings of many words in the text date from the 1540s up to about 1740. To put it another way, some Book of Mormon vocabulary reflects a period not only prior to the birth of Joseph Smith but also prior to the publication of the King James Bible in 1611.

Arguing along parallel lines, an important new article entitled “A Look at Some ‘Nonstandard’ Book of Mormon Grammar” has just appeared in “Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture” (online Linguist Stanford Carmack builds upon Skousen’s work, and, indeed, bases his analysis upon Skousen’s 2009 Yale University Press edition of “The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text,” but focuses on grammar and syntax rather than on vocabulary.

Carmack shows that much of what has been dismissed as incorrect in the language of the Book of Mormon isn’t actually wrong. To the contrary (while considering dozens of such “obvious” grammatical “howlers” as “in them days,” “I had smote” versus “I had smitten” and “they was yet wroth”), he maintains that the book’s language is “excellent and even sophisticated.”

It simply isn’t the Modern English that we typically use today.

And this, for my present purposes, is the crucial point: “It’s important and helpful to bear in mind,” Carmack writes, “that the original Book of Mormon language is, generally speaking, only nonstandard from our standpoint, centuries after the Elizabethan era, which appears to be the epicenter of the book’s syntax.”

Now, think about that statement. Let it sink in, because its implications are stunning.

Carmack argues that, especially when the textual “corrections” of the past nearly two centuries have been stripped away — emendations and “improvements” intended to bring the published Book of Mormon into conformity with modern standards of usage — the grammar found in the book offers extensive evidence of its Early Modern English character. The original English Book of Mormon is, he says, “in large part” an Early Modern English text, “even reaching back in time to the transition period” from late Middle English into Early Modern English. “The correspondences are plentiful and plain.”

For the full article by Daniel Peterson, go to the DeseretNews

Die Boek van Mormon

Die Boek van Mormon
By John M. Pontius
I was searching through my books in storage a few days ago and came across a first edition of the Book of Mormon in Afrikaans. I served a mission in South Africa from 1971 to 1973. It was an interesting and challenging experience.
I attended the Stake Conference in Johannesburg on May 14, 1972 when the new translation of the Book of Mormon into Afrikaans (Die Boek van Mormon) was presented.
It was an electric moment. People wept. Some had waited all of their lifetimes to read the Book of Mormon in Afrikaans. Many people had learned English for the sole purpose of reading this scripture. The Spirit was strong among us as we rejoiced.
Remembering back more than 50 years, I can still remember Professor Felix Mynhardt [not a member of our church] as he spoke of his experience in translating that sacred book. I will retell it as best I can recall.
Professor Mynhardt was invited to come to the stand and speak about his experience in translating the Book of Mormon. He recounted how he had been given a gift of languages from God from his youth. He said that he was fluent in many languages, including English, Afrikaans, Hebrew and Egyptian, as well as many others.
He was presently employed as a language professor. He said he had been praying that the Lord would give him some task, some divinely important task, that would justify his having this gift of language from God.He said in about 1970 that he had visited with a group of Mormon leaders, who sought to commission him to translate the Book of Mormon from English into Afrikaans. He said that he knew of the Book of Mormon from his religions studies, and his initial reaction was that he did not want to be involved in translating it.  However, that evening, as he prayed upon his knees, as was his habit, he said the Spirit of the Lord convicted him. The message was something on the order of,
“You asked me for a great, divinely inspired task of translation, I sent it to you in the form of translating the Book of Mormon, and you declined.”
Professor Mynhardt said he could not sleep through the night because he knew that translating the Book of Mormon would get him into trouble with his university, which was owned and operated by the Dutch Reformed Church.
When morning came he telephoned Elder Clark to inform him that he would begin the translation immediately.  He stood at the pulpit and described the experience.
He said,
“I never begin translating a book at the beginning. Writing style usually changes through a book, and becomes more consistent toward the middle. Accordingly, I opened to a random place in the middle of the Book of Mormon, and began translating.”
He said,
“I was startled by the obvious fact that the Book of Mormon was not authored in English.  
He said,
“It became immediately apparent that what I was reading was a translation into English from some other language. The sentence structure was wrong for native English. The word choices were wrong, as were many phrases.”
He said,
“How many times has an Englishman said or written, ‘And it came to pass?’”
We all laughed, and knew he was right, of course.  He continued,
“When I realized this, I knew that I had to find the original language, and translate it back into the original language, or a similar language to the original, and then proceed to translate it into Afrikaans.
He listed a half-dozen languages he tried, all of which did not accommodate the strange sentence structure found in the Book of Mormon. He said,
“I finally tried Egyptian, and to my complete surprise, I found that the Book of Mormon translated flawlessly into Egyptian, not modern, but ancient Egyptian. I found that some nouns were missing from Egyptian, so I added Hebrew nouns where Egyptian did not provide the word or phrase. I chose Hebrew because both languages existed in the same place anciently. “I had no idea at that time why the Book of Mormon was once written in Egyptian, but I can tell you without any doubt, that this book was at one point written entirely in Egyptian.”
I heard him say this over and over. Then, he said,
“Imagine my utter astonishment when I turned to chapter one, verse one and began my actual translation and came to verse two, where Nephi describes that he was writing in the language of the Egyptians, with the learning of the Jews!”
He said,
“I knew by the second verse, that this was no ordinary book, that it was not the writings of Joseph Smith, but that it was of ancient origin and was in fact scripture. I could have saved myself months of work if I had just begun at the beginning. Nobody but God, working through a prophet of God, in this case Nephi, would have included a statement of the language he was writing in. Consider, how many documents written in English, include the phrase, “we are writing in English!”
It is unthinkable and absolute proof of the inspired origins of this book.  He paused, then noted,
“I am one of the few people in the world that is fluent in ancient Egyptian. I am perhaps the only person fluent in ancient Egyptian who is also fluent in Afrikaans and English. And I know for a fact, that I am the only person alive who could have translated this book first into Egyptian, and then into Afrikaans. If your church ever needs an Egyptian translation of the Book of Mormon, it is sitting in my office as we speak.”
We all laughed.  Professor Mynhardt spoke of many other things regarding the translation of this book, and then said,
“I do not know what Joseph Smith was before he translated this book, and I do not know what he was afterward, but while he translated this book, he was a prophet of God! I know he was a prophet! I testify to you that he was a prophet while he brought forth this book! He could have been nothing else! No person in 1827 could have done what he did. The science did not exist. The knowledge of ancient Egyptian did not exist. The knowledge of these ancient times and ancient peoples did not exist. The Book of Mormon is scripture. I hope you realize this. “I will keep promoting this book as scripture for the remainder of my life– simply because it is scripture, and I know it.  I haven’t studied your doctrine or your history since Joseph Smith. The only thing I know about the Mormon religion is that you have authentic, ancient scripture in the Book of Mormon, that your church was begun by a living and true prophet of God, and that all of the world should embrace the Book of Mormon as scripture. It simply can’t be denied.”