Deception?

Boyd K. Packer and Deception.

In the Book of Mormon Class Member Study Guide, chapter 9, Boyd K. Packer says the following in talking about the sections of Isaiah included in the Book of Mormon:

“For the most part, it is in easy-flowing New Testament Language, with such words as spake for spoke, unto for to, with and it came to pass, with thus and thou and thine.”

What he does not mention is that the New Testament for the most part was written in Greek and that the languages of the New Testament included Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and other languages of the Middle East. These peoples did not speak Jacobean English and this is what the King James Version of the Bible (as used by the Mormon Church), is written in.

As an example of Jacobean English as used in the Bible I will quote the KJV of the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9):

“Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.”

The Greek of the New Testament does not have the same vernacular as is used in the King James version of the Bible. There is no special dialect used when speaking to deity.

The following is the Greek Version of the above (as closely given as possible using the English alphabet.

“Pater emun o en tois ouranois, agiasthetu to onoma sou, egthetu e basileia sou, genethetu to thelema sou, us en ouranu kai epi ges.”

In Greek it is:

Οὕτως οὖν προσεύχεσθε ὑμεῖς: Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ἁγιασθήτω τὸὄνομά σου,

Let us look at the section “hallowed be thy name”. The Greek for this is “agiasthetu to onoma sou”. The following is a breakdown of the words.

agiasthetu This word means let be revered, or hallowed.

to the

onoma name

sou Genitive version of the word you. The genitive indicates possession. I.e. Your or of you

I would expect a scriptural scholar like Elder Packer to have some knowledge of this. Although the word sou may be translated as thy, it is more appropriate to translate it as you. When Elder Packer states that the Book of Mormon was written in the New Testament language, my question is, “Does he mean that the Book of Mormon was written in Greek?” Or is Elder Packer being deceptive and mis-directing people?

The following is the Greek version of verse 10 in the Greek language and Alphabet.

ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου, γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς.

In April 2004 I sent a letter to my local stake presidency about some question I had on this problem.

I noted that I was concerned that Packer either did not understand what language the New Testament and the Old testament were written in or he was being deceitful. So I asked the Stake Presidency. After three weeks of nothing back I sent the same line of questions to the First Presidency.

Now you may all ask, did anyone answer the questions that I asked? No, they did not. Although someone at church headquarters did send me a copy of an article by Packer from the May 1986 Ensign entitled “The Things of My Soul”.

The article is three pages long and I would like to comment on some of what Packer says in the article. I will quote a section and after each quote my comments will be in bold face.

“I speak to those who have never read the Book of Mormon. This includes many members who have started to read it several times, but, for one reason or another, have never finished it.

My message may help those who have read the Book of Mormon once but have not returned to it.”

When I read this (it is the opening two paragraphs to the article), I could not help but wonder, did the person who read my letter simply assume that I had not read the Book of Mormon and that I haven’t studied it? Perhaps because I had the gall to question a general authority that I could not have possibly read the book? Well, this was not the case with me. I have read and studied the Book of Mormon. Personally, in seminary and in Sunday School for many years. As an anthropologist I even studied archaeology to help prove the Book of Mormon to be true.

“Except for the Bible, the Book of Mormon is different from any other book you have read. It is not a novel. It is not fiction. For the most part, it is not difficult to read. However, like all books of profound value, it is not casual reading. But if you persist, I assure you that it will be the most rewarding book you have ever set your mind to read.

The Book of Mormon is not biographical, for not one character is fully drawn. Nor, in a strict sense, is it a history.”

I have to agree with Packer that the book is not a novel. Novels are well written compositions for the most part. I do disagree that it is easy to read. I find the book tedious. If I never hear “and it came to pass” again I will be happy. I also find it interesting that Packer intimates that the book is not historical. Is this where the church is moving? Will the church some day admit that the book is not about people that lived in the Americas?

“Lehi’s son Nephi obtained the record for his father and said “It is wisdom in God that we should obtain these records, that we may preserve unto our children the language of our fathers.”

The language of the Jews was Hebrew. Later they would speak Greek (many New Testament Jews did not read the Old Testament in Hebrew but read the Greek translation called the Septuagint). They did not speak Egyptian. So why would they really write in Egyptian when they had a well defined writing system already for their own language!?

Packer goes on to talk about what is contained in the sacred record. He then says the following in speaking of Jacob’s record:

“Did you notice that he was not to touch (save it lightly) on the history of the people but he was to touch upon sacred things as much as it were possible!”

When looking at these sacred things they are general Christian type beliefs. Where are mentionings of all of the extra ordinances, polygamy, temple rites, etc? Packer then goes on to say that the more sacred things were written down for posterity. They were not kept secret.

“Those preachings which were sacred, the revelations which were great, and the prophesying, all testified of the coming of the Messiah

Prophecies concerning the Messiah appear in the Old Testament. But the Book of Mormon records a vision of that event which has no equal in the Old testament.

After the people of Lehi had arrived in the Western hemisphere, Lehi had a vision of the tree of life. His son Nephi prayed to know its meaning. In answer he was given a remarkable vision of Christ.

In that vision he saw:

• A virgin bearing a child in her arms,

• One who should prepare the way – John the baptist,

• The ministry of the Son of God...”

I have always wondered why the Jews did not receive the same types of visions that Lehi and Nephi had. What made them so special when there were still prophets in Israel?

I should also note here that the 1830 version of the Book of Mormon states that the virgin was the mother of God. The current edition was changed to say that she was the Mother of the Son of God. A big doctrinal shift here.

“The Book of Mormon is a book of scripture. It is another testament of Jesus Christ. It is written in biblical language, the language of the prophets.

For the most part, it is easy flowing New Testament language, with such words as spake for spoke, unto for to, with and it came to pass, with thus and thou and thine.”

The examples of language given by Packer here are Jacobean English. And Jacobean English is not the language of the Prophets. Hebrew and Greek are the languages of the Prophets and do not have the same archaic forms of speech that Jacobean English uses when speaking of or to Deity. Apparently Packer does not realize this. Packer then goes on to address how to gain a testimony of the Book of Mormon.

“No missionary, no member can fulfill that promise – neither Apostle nor President can full fill that promise. It is a promise of direct revelation to you on the conditions described in the book. After you have read the Book of Mormon, you become qualified to inquire of the Lord, in the way that he prescribes in the book, as to whether the book is true. You will be eligible, on the conditions He has established, to receive that personal revelation.”

I thought it interesting that he mentions president and not prophet. What did he mean by this? I also thought it interesting that he said you had to read the book first. Couldn’t one just ask God if they should read the book? Wouldn’t a just, loving God tell you yes or no?

Nowhere in this article did Packer address anything tangible. No archaeology etc. He resorted to proving the book by the book and by only him saying that it was true. Does anyone else find something lacking in this?