cinepro

Does everyone agree that there is simply no possible way for Anthon (or any other living person) to actually verify a translation of Reformed Egyptian -> English? I mean, Mormon himself said that "none other people" back then could read it, so how would it be possible for Anthon to figure it out? So any story that claims Anthon claimed he could verify the translation is either incorrect, or Anthon was lying or mistaken?

Lucy Smith's account also says that no translation had been done at the time Martin went to New York (spelling and grammar cleaned up):

Additionally, here is the version of the story from Joseph's 1832 diary (spelling and grammar cleaned up). According to this entry, Martin didn't have a translation to show, just some characters. The translating didn't start until he got back.

And my favorite blog on the subject, from a non-member who investigates unknown texts: https://ciphermysteries.com/2009/06/01/the-anthon-transcript

FYI:

Davis's response sounds amazingly similar to something I said dozens of times on my mission. "Don't believe what someone else wrote about the book. You need to read it yourself to know if it's true!"

I think it's easy to underestimate the impact of the pandemic on the Church. I mean, who hasn't looked around the Church at at least one point in their lives and noted the lasting impact of the 1918 pandemic? (Other than this one, of course...) That being said, I think the church was in the biggest pickle with missionary work. The missionary program is a massive logistics machine, and it couldn't just be shut down on a dime and then reopened. Think of the countless leases, utility bills, auto expenses etc. that would continue. It would be a massive drain on the Church's balance sheet. And

You're really missing out. The Babylon Bee is my favorite satirical site. It's satire from a Christian/Conservative viewpoint, but they poke fun at all the different christian sects (including LDS; you might want to avoid those), as well as the more annoying aspects of Conservatism. https://babylonbee.com/

But that still leaves the translation problem. If the translation is tied that closely to the actual text (the word for "horse" or "elephant" must be translated as "horse" or "elephant", even if it's referring to a different animal), then how is it possible to have 19th century artifacts or influences in the translation? Ultimately, you have two different translation theories: the "loose" translation and the "tight" translation, and defenders must insist that both were used, with Joseph ping-ponging back and forth between a tight translation and a loose translation. Such an elastic theory m

Wow. The world is a crazier place than I imagined.

What's your definition of "hardly absorbed"? Because there appear to be several studies that show supplements are more-than-hardly absorbed, depending on the delivery method. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6631968/ Also...

Good news. You're both right.

That analogy only works for translations being done where the translator is fluent in both languages. In the case of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith didn't actually read Reformed Egyptian. And the translation process was precise enough to convey words that Joseph Smith didn't know, so it wasn't limited to words Joseph Smith had in his vocabulary. I mean, once you have a process that can convey words like "Coriantumr", "Zemnarihah" and "Riplakish" (not to mention "cumom" and "curelom"), it's kind of hard to say that the translation process couldn't convey words like "tapir" or "chinchill

Except for Vitamin D. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-77093-z

My ward in California is doing nothing. The stake is doing a drive-through Primary activity with different stations set up in a church parking lot.