Joseph Smith

and

KING JAMES

Section 1


Was Smith A Copycat And Cult Leader
Or God’s Prophet?

If you have not read “A Word Of Warning,” I encourage you to do so before reading this
feature. You may connect to it by clicking on...
“A Word of Warning”

“Church” And King James

To lead up to what I want to say, allow me to disappoint some of you by revealing that I have little respect for the King James Version of the scriptures, believing its dialect to be extinct and its errors numerous. Of course there are errors in every version, but the KJV seems to contain more than most of the others—unless it would be the version used by Jehovah's Witnesses.

Most believers say their “church” was ushered in about A.D. 33, as registered in the Book of Acts, chapter 2. However, the KJV has one under Moses in Acts 7:38, and another one under David in Hebrews 2:12. The point is, Jesus did not introduce a church—any church, then or later. This statement will ruffle the feathers of some of you who are churchly-addicted, but please hear me out before you turn me off.

“Church” is not a translation of the Greek ekklesia. The Greek term is correctly translated congregation, assembly, called-out ones, and may even be rendered “community.” Moses led a congregation of chosen ones under the old era; Jesus leads a congregation of chosen ones under the new era. But neither led or is leading a church or religious party.

King James’ Blunders
Prior to King James’ scholars translating the Greek scriptures into what is known as The King James Version, he instructed them, “The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word church not to be translated congregation” (The Christian Baptist, Vol. 2, Number 4, Nov. 1, 1824).

The King insisted that all ecclesiastical terms be retained. “Church,” “Easter,” “baptize,” and “Bishop” were a few of his preferences. King James was King and Head of The Established Church of England. To permit his translators to deliver the Greek ekklesia correctly would have placed him in the position of being King and Head of a mere congregation! Apparently, he wanted no part of that.

It might interest you to know that William Tyndale’s translation of the New Testament scriptures was published in 1525, almost 100 years before The King James Version made its appearance. He translated ekklesia “congregation” and baptizo “immerse” and was condemned to death as a heretic. Additionally, Hugh J. Schonfield’s Authentic New Testament (1955) renders Matthew 16:18, “Upon that rock I will found my community.” So regardless of how we peel the orange, “church” is a total and absolute mistranslation.

Joseph Smith And The Holy Spirit
What does all of this mean? Simply, Joseph Smith could not have been led by the Holy Spirit of God when he translated “church” from his imaginary “gold plates.” For had he been piloted by the Spirit when he contrived The Book of Mormon, “church” would never have appeared in his bogus translation in a favorable light. In our standard Bible, “church” is never found in our oldest Greek manuscripts—nor is “Easter,” another of King James’ deliberate errors. And remember:

Smith adopted “church” from the King James Version of the scriptures, so if the KJV is in error, and it is, Smith’s version is in error. And since God did not personally direct the steps of the King James scholars when they penned the KJV, nor did He personally direct the steps of “prophet Smith” when he penned The Book of Mormon.

Smith’s “Church Of God” In B.C. 86!
To demonstrate how horribly ridiculous Smith’s Book of Mormon is, let us assume “church” is an accurate translation of the Greek ekklesia. It isn’t, but to develop my demonstration we’ll assume it is. All standard translations place the “church of God” as having begun after Jesus’ visit to planet Earth—never before. Jesus founded the era of grace and set in motion His new reign in the form of the “church of God.” Smith, however, has the “church of God” existing in 86 B.C.—many years before Jesus came to planet Earth. Listen to him.

“And they began to establish the church more fully; yea, and many were baptized in the waters of Sidon
and were joined to the church of God” (Alma 4:4).

If you have a copy of The Book of Mormon, take a look at the footnotes. The above statement places the “church of God” in 86 B.C. There are numerous other statements in Smith's bogus translation that has the “church of God” existing long before Jesus made His advent. One of the amusing aspects of his fictional translation is that he never once calls his church “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.” I find that rather odd, inasmuch as this church is supposed to have been founded upon Smith’s initial and principal translation, The Book of Mormon. But that’s the tone of his “testament”—throughout.

Smith Borrowed “Baptize” From King James
Smith not only borrowed “church” from King James, but he borrowed other ecclesiastical terms for his fraudulent translation, more notably “baptize.” The term is not a translation of the Greek baptizo. If baptizo had been translated correctly rather than transliterated, we would have immerse, submerge, dip, or plunge—but not “baptize.” Our English “baptize” encompasses immersion, sprinkling, and pouring. The Greek term does not embody sprinkling and pouring. So again, if it hadn't been for the KJV of the scriptures, Smith’s Book of Mormon would probably be non-existent, for he based his “revelation” and “translation” on King James’ vernacular. In doing so, he proved himself a copycat rather than a divinely inspired prophet of God. If you entertain doubts about his being a false prophet, please read the Feature on Mormonism prior to this one—assuming you haven’t already.

“Revelation” Or “Translation?”
Mormons don’t particularly like “revelation” in reference to The Book of Mormon. They claim “The Book of Mormon is a ‘translation,’ not a ‘revelation.’ ” A little logic will dislodge that claim, however. Smith received “gold plates” from God’s angel. These plates, allegedly, carried God’s messages. Whether the messages were written or spoken verbally or conferred in a vision, makes no difference. It’s still a revelation. He received a revelation, written in an “extinct tongue” on engraved plates, and the supernatural power to translate it into English—bad grammar, double-talk, absurdities, contradictions and all. To assert that The Book of Mormon is not a revelation is nothing but a play on words—a “revelation” fabricated in Smith’s own mind, not in the mind of God.

Consequently, if Smith’s “revelation” and “translation” are faulty to any extent, God is to blame because He authored the “revelation” and granted Smith the supernatural gift to translate it. I suggest we blame Joseph Smith for this jumbled mess, not God.

Facing Up To Reality
But let’s return to “church,” King James’ favorite ecclesiastical term. Man established churches, religious parties, denominations, sects, and cults. Jesus ushered in a new people, a new congregation, a new assembly, a new community, a new household of faith, a new reign, a holy priesthood, and one body of believers (Eph. 4:4, I Peter 2:5, and others). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is as much a sect and man-made institution as the Baptist Church, Methodist, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Assembly of God, Evangelical Free Church, mainline Church of Christ (vocal music only), Jehovah’s Witnesses, and all the other religious parties and sects and denominations among us.

God, of course, has children in most if not all of the above, but they should abandon the party spirit or sectarianism and become Christians only—not Christians plus Baptists, or Methodists, or Roman Catholics, or Lutherans, or any of the other pluses, but Christians only—non-partisans in a partisan world.

Has God Changed His Mind About “Church?”
My robust position is that Smith’s Book of Mormon is quackery and should be rejected and denounced as rubbish and a counterfeit piece of worthless material. But the argument could be made by Smith’s disciples, “By the time God directed Smith to translate the gold plates into English, he had changed His mind about the usage of church and guided Smith to employ the term.”

That argument won’t float. For if God knew all things in advance, and He did, and He knew that in Smith’s day “church” would be an acceptable and honorable term, it seems He would have led His divinely inspired servants to include “church” in the original autographs 2,000 years ago. To state it differently, if He knew the term would be acceptable in the 1800s, when Smith translated the “gold plates,” why did He not make it admissible in A.D. 100? Additionally, if He made “church” admissible in the 1800s, why did He not make the King James dialect inadmissible, especially since the English language had undergone such a drastic revision? Of course, you understand, without the King James dialect, Smith’s efforts to make his translation appear “Godlike” and “holy” would have been fruitless.

Extinct Egyptian Tongue vs. “Church”
Smith said the plates had to be translated from an extinct Egyptian tongue. He himself was American and spoke the English language. If God wanted Smith to convey a new “revelation” in English, was He (God) incapable of delivering the plates in the English language? The Hebrews of old received Hebrew messages from God. The early writers of the New Covenant scriptures wrote in the language of their time—Greek, primarily, as God’s Holy Spirit moved them. So why would God confuse matters by giving Joseph Smith a language he needed to translate?

But another thought: Why would God give Smith any language that carried the possibility of imperfections? Please note the following quotation from The Book of Mormon.

“And if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our
record” (Mormon 9:33).

Thus Smith admits the likelihood of “imperfections” in his “translation,” in spite of the fact that he believed it was the “most correct of any book on earth!” And not only that, but if God or an angel personally guided his hand, as he alleged, there should be zero imperfections! His admission to possible imperfections is like the prophet Isaiah closing his book by saying, “And if we could have written in Greek, behold, you would have had no imperfections in our record.” Such a statement from the great prophet Isaiah would have discredited the entirety of his writings! Yet, Joseph Smith authored such a statement. He discredits his own claims. So the man meets himself returning from his own double-talk. But what’s new?

Typical Mormon Response
What is the usual Mormon response to all of this? I’ll share it with you. It’s author is a committed, dedicated “Latter-Day Saint” who professes to know the church’s teachings. For personal reasons, I’ll not include his name.

“The LDS church has never claimed that the Book of Mormon is perfect. Of course there will be errors. It was written by mortal, fallible men and was translated by a mortal, fallible man. Simply because the translation was done by the inspiration of God does not change the fact that mortal men wrote it. Simply put, God is working through imperfect human beings. The errors, if any, in His messages are not His. They are the result of an imperfect, mortal prophet and/or prophets trying to communicate His divine word. I believe this applies to all prophets and you will see that in all scripture or prophetic statements.”

Let us not forget that Joseph Smith claimed the Book of Mormon was the “most correct of any book on earth.” The writer above conceded that Smith made this statement. In fact, it’s part of Mormon history. This being the case, how can there be imperfections? If it's the “most correct of any book on earth,” it should contain zero flaws, zero defects, and zero blemishes. But we know that isn’t the case, for it is weighty with a diversity of errors and miscellaneous blunders—doctrinal, grammatical, and otherwise. We need to spell it out even more clearly.

1) Deity delivered the “gold plates” to Smith.

2) Deity guided his mind, his spirit, and his hands as he translated the plates from an “extinct tongue” into English.

3) As the Mormon author above says, “...the translation was done by the inspiration of God.” If the translation was done by the inspiration of God, God must take the blame for any and all errors, contradictions, false prophecies, faulty doctrine, redundancies, and the like. Even a child should be able to comprehend this truth.

4) Although Smith was mortal and fallible, with only a 3rd grade education, Deity’s “education” far transcends any mortal. Therefore, Smith’s “supernatural” and “inspirational” assistance should have restrained him from any and all inaccuracies, regardless of their nature.

Can we envision the Holy Spirit of God, as He spoke through the apostle Peter on the birthday of the Christian community (Acts 2:4-40), uttering a message to the audience that’s pregnant with errors and inaccuracies of sundry shades? Heaven forbid! Yet this is precisely what happened to Smith. It makes no difference whether the words are spoken verbally, as with Peter, or written down, as with Joseph Smith. For if the Holy Spirit is directly involved, as with Peter in Acts 2 and with Smith as he translated the plates, there should be zero mistakes. There’s no “getting around” these principles, and no route to “explain them away.”

Counter Argument By “Latter-Day Saints”

“Your common versions of the Bible contain errors. Is Deity responsible for them? If Deity is to blame for the errors in The Book of Mormon, as per your contention, why wouldn’t Deity be responsible for the Bible’s errors?”

Translators of our common Bible were not guided by Deity when they translated the Hebrew and Greek into English, nor did they have access to the original autographs. They had access only to the oldest manuscripts. Joseph Smith claimed to have in his possession “gold plates”—plates delivered directly to him by God’s angel, and the supernatural gift to translate those plates. The Bible’s translators had neither “plates” nor the supernatural gift to translate from one language to another. Under the alleged circumstances relating to Smith’s claims, his translation should be entirely free of errors. But it isn’t. It’s full of them.

To connect to Section 2, click on...
“Copy Cat, Section 2”

If you’d like to receive my weekly Reformation Rumblings, or otherwise make contact, click on
my address below.


Renewal@mindspring.com