Joseph Smith Papers/translation

[Hammer]

First riddle me this. "I give unto men weakness that they may be humble..." Does God really give us weaknesses? Or is there another possible interpretation of this scripture?

Seriously you don't see that these two scriptures are not speaking of the same thing? There is weaknesses and there is wickedness.

God gives us weakness such as body deformities, weakness towards poor health and weaknesses born of environment. But God does not give us sin. We can only sin if we have knowledge of something and then go against that knowledge. They had knowledge and it took it away.

So where does the first stumbling come in?

[Lamanite]

Seriously you don't see that these two scriptures are not speaking of the same thing? There is weaknesses and there is wickedness.

God gives us weakness such as body deformities, weakness towards poor health and weaknesses born of environment. But God does not give us sin. We can only sin if we have knowledge of something and then go against that knowledge. They had knowledge and it took it away.

So where does the first stumbling come in?

I think stumbling and weaknesses and trials in general come from 1 or more of these three things.

1. The fallen world in which we live. (I think your attribution of body deformities, poor health etc fall in this category and should not be blamed on God)

2. Mistakes and bad choices we make or other people make while using our free agency.

3. The rare and specially designed tutorials that are for our accelerated learning, a la Abraham and Issac.

I think the stumbling can be attributed to #2. Same goes for weaknesses most of the time.

[Hammer]

I think stumbling and weaknesses and trials in general come from 1 or more of these three things.

1. The fallen world in which we live. (I think your attribution of body deformities, poor health etc fall in this category and should not be blamed on God)

2. Mistakes and bad choices we make or other people make while using our free agency.

3. The rare and specially designed tutorials that are for our accelerated learning, a la Abraham and Issac.

I think the stumbling can be attributed to #2. Same goes for weaknesses most of the time.

So the mistakes and bad choices are clearly made against knowledge right? That would be different than God giving us a weakness of some sort that had nothing to do with knowledge, or an environment that actually denied us gaining that knowledge right?

So help me understand what you are saying in regards to the difference between laying a stumbling block for those who disregard knowledge with a weakness that comes from a lack of knowledge and thereby no stumbling?

[Lamanite]

So the mistakes and bad choices are clearly made against knowledge right? That would be different than God giving us a weakness of some sort that had nothing to do with knowledge, or an environment that actually denied us gaining that knowledge right?

So help me understand what you are saying in regards to the difference between laying a stumbling block for those who disregard knowledge with a weakness that comes from a lack of knowledge and thereby no stumbling?

I'm saying if their is a stumbling block in our way because of a choice we made, then the block is not Gods doing but our own.

I don't view lack of knowledge as a result of circumstance (such as where we were born), as a stumbling block. Being born in Tonga in 1805 is not a punishment just a result of option #1 or #2, or both.

I think that perhaps Nephites may have viewed it as God giving weaknesses, or God placing stumbling blocks, but my own experience and observations are that it's more often than not #1 or #2 and rarely #3.

[Hammer]

I'm saying if their is a stumbling block in our way because of a choice we made, then the block is not Gods doing but our own.

I don't view lack of knowledge as a result of circumstance (such as where we were born), as a stumbling block. Being born in Tonga in 1805 is not a punishment just a result of option #1 or #2, or both.

I think that perhaps Nephites may have viewed it as God giving weaknesses, or God placing stumbling blocks, but my own experience and observations are that it's more often than not #1 or #2 and rarely #3.

I agree with paragraph 1 and 2. But paragraph 3 leaves me mistified.

[wenglund]

Why include KJV errors if the text was revealed "visually" in the instruments. Why didn't God just clean up the text while they were at it. Same question goes for 2nd Isaiah and other anachronistic problems that I haven't figured out yet.

In a way, MC is right. It wouldn't matter. If God had "cleaned it up", the critics would find some reason to see it as cause for doubt, and the believers would also be unphased one way or the other. The question of the verity of the Book of Mormon doesn't really turn on the nature of the transaltion (whether given word for word or as ideas or a mixture of both), but on whether one receives and recognizes spiritual affirmation thereto.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Lamanite]

In a way, MC is right. It wouldn't matter. If God had "cleaned it up", the critics would find some reason to see it as cause for doubt, and the believers would also be unphased one way or the other. The question of the verity of the Book of Mormon doesn't really turn on the nature of the transaltion (whether given word for word or as ideas or a mixture of both), but on whether one receives and recognizes spiritual affirmation thereto.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes...I said that already!

[Glenn101]

I don't know but what we are straining at gnats here. There are a lot of questions that we just do not have an answer for right now, and maybe never will in this mortal life. Moroni acknowledged openly that the Book of Mormon contained imperfections. "And whoso receiveth athis record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these. Behold, I am Moroni; and were it possible, I would make all things known unto you." (Morm. 8:12)

"Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been." (Morm. 9: 31)

I am not saying that we should stop learning and seking to understand, but that maybe we should stop beating our heads against the wall sometimes and look at the bigger picture.

My big picture starts with the spiritual witness that I have had of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, the calling of Joseph Smith as a prophet, and the actuality of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I am amazed (and thrilled) at all of the things that have been discovered internally in the Book of Mormon and externally that ring true. There are so many "how could Joseph have known this thing or that thing" which makes this just a head beater.

Now if some one has a good answere, I am ready to listen.

Glenn

[Lamanite]

I agree with paragraph 1 and 2. But paragraph 3 leaves me mistified.

You're not the first to be mystified by me. And that's not just some false humility crap. There is the very real possibility I'm waaaaay off, which is why I appreciate the dialogue.

thanks!

Sione

[Lamanite]

I don't know but what we are straining at gnats here. There are a lot of questions that we just do not have an answer for right now, and maybe never will in this mortal life. Moroni acknowledged openly that the Book of Mormon contained imperfections. "And whoso receiveth athis record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these. Behold, I am Moroni; and were it possible, I would make all things known unto you." (Morm. 8:12)

"Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been." (Morm. 9: 31)

I am not saying that we should stop learning and seking to understand, but that maybe we should stop beating our heads against the wall sometimes and look at the bigger picture.

My big picture starts with the spiritual witness that I have had of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, the calling of Joseph Smith as a prophet, and the actuality of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I am amazed (and thrilled) at all of the things that have been discovered internally in the Book of Mormon and externally that ring true. There are so many "how could Joseph have known this thing or that thing" which makes this just a head beater.

Now if some one has a good answere, I am ready to listen.

Glenn

I think the answer I've come to is that I/WE DON"T KNOW. I'll just go about my day now and try to love God and love my neighbor and repent before I go to sleep, in fact I don't know that I'll wait that long (I like to repent throughout the day ) Then I'll probably reflect and contemplate with awe the miraculous life of Joseph Smith and in particular the translation of the BoM.

[wenglund]

Yes...I said that already!

No...you said something about putting things on shelves and the Church rolling forward. That's not what I said.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Lamanite]

No...you said something about putting things on shelves and the Church rolling forward. That's not what I said.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No, I said something about gnats and big deals...I don't know what the hell I said.

[wenglund]

No, I said something about gnats and big deals...I don't know what the hell I said.

Well...whatever you said, I liked it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

While we have some insight into how things were handled from this side, what do we really know about how it was handled from the other side? Is there any revelation that would exclude God delegating the transmission of the text to someone else, perhaps the original authors, Moroni or Mormon as the editor or even someone else? Would we expect a "perfect" text---whatever "perfect" actually means in this context--from someone who is not God, but rather is His servant or spokesman for this purpose?

[Hammer]

You're not the first to be mystified by me. And that's not just some false humility crap. There is the very real possibility I'm waaaaay off, which is why I appreciate the dialogue.

thanks!

Sione

Mahalo

[Lamanite]

Mahalo

Mahalo=Hawaiian

Malo=Tongan

I appreciate the sentiment!

Big UP!= Jawaiian

Sione

[hgomez2]

This is one of the things that has puzzled me a bit. Some of the Isaiah quotes are word for word just as is in the King Kames Bible, supposed errors and all, and others are considerably different. I have never heard a good explanation for that. I guess no one really knows.

It's called plagiarism.

Recipe: take wholesale passages from the KJV and add in contemporary views of the time (i.e. Indians are decendants of Jews, contrary to DNA evidence)... add in make believe names and places (which LDS still struggle to find to this day)... and wholla... the Word of God! (well some, what was plagiarized).

Then use that book 'another gospel' to give credence that you are a prophet of god, after all the BoM doesn't really contradict anything in the Bible, so it would be fairly easy to accept (since a chunk was plagiarized anyhow). Then when you later change doctrines and pervert the Christian fundementals, few followers will question you, because after all... you are a prophet. Funny how the BoM doesn't speak to any of the doctrinal changes made in later 'revelations'...

Why "god" would give Smith King James era English in the 1800's doesn't pass any reasonable scrutiny test to consider it equivelant with OT and NT scripture.

More evidence that the Book of Mormon is not inspired scripture (except where plagiarized) and thus any feelings from a spirit about it's truthfulness render that spirit, false.

[Lamanite]

It's called plagiarism.

Recipe: take wholesale passages from the KJV and add in contemporary views of the time (i.e. Indians are decendants of Jews, contrary to DNA evidence)... add in make believe names and places (which LDS still struggle to find to this day)... and wholla... the Word of God! (well some, what was plagiarized).

Then use that book 'another gospel' to give credence that you are a prophet of god, after all the BoM doesn't really contradict anything in the Bible, so it would be fairly easy to accept (since a chunk was plagiarized anyhow). Then when you later change doctrines and pervert the Christian fundementals, few followers will question you, because after all... you are a prophet. Funny how the BoM doesn't speak to any of the doctrinal changes made in later 'revelations'...

Why "god" would give Smith King James era English in the 1800's doesn't pass any reasonable scrutiny test to consider it equivelant with OT and NT scripture.

More evidence that the Book of Mormon is not inspired scripture (except where plagiarized) and thus any feelings from a spirit about it's truthfulness render that spirit, false.

This viewpoint is myopic and naive. The problem is, is that you're agenda distorts and prevents you from considering any alternative viewpoint and the ability to recognize any strengths found in the competing assertions.

Moreover, you're at ease pointing out textual problems with the BoM while completely ignoring the same problems in your own Religious texts. I need not be specific because all have the fingerprints of humanity all over the cover and on each successive page.

[hgomez2]

This viewpoint is myopic and naive. The problem is, is that you're agenda distorts and prevents you from considering any alternative viewpoint and the ability to recognize any strengths found in the competing assertions.

Moreover, you're at ease pointing out textual problems with the BoM while completely ignoring the same problems in your own Religious texts. I need not be specific because all have the fingerprints of humanity all over the cover and on each successive page.

Nah, it's a rather obvious deduction. Besides how can I be open to alternative viewpoints when nobody really knows why wholesale passages of the KJV Bible appear in an 1800's "translation" of "ancient texts" from the Americas.

You won't provide specifics (like every other LDS) because you can't provide specifics (just allegations). You likely haven't done the research yourself in determining if our Biblical scriptures are trustworthy (yet somehow the OT was trustworthy enough for Christ and the Apostles to teach from) but rather accept the spoon fed 'conspiracy theories' offered by your peers.

[Doctor Steuss]

It's called plagiarism.

[...]

Attribution is given to the author (Isaiah). Unless of course you are utilizing a different definition of "plagiarism" than the one I am aware of.

Out of curiosity (and for the sake of consistency), do you think Christ plagiarized the Shayast-na-Shsayast in Matthew 7?

[Lamanite]

Yeah...what Doctor steuss said!

[Doctor Steuss]

This is one of the things that has puzzled me a bit. Some of the Isaiah quotes are word for word just as is in the King Kames Bible, supposed errors and all, and others are considerably different. I have never heard a good explanation for that. I guess no one really knows.

Glenn

I unfortunately haven't had the pleasure of studying the critical text project, but I fortunately have had the opportunity to dialogue with some people who have. So, although this is a bit like the game of telephone, Don Bradley once related to me that it appears that some of the KJV Isaiah passages were the doing of the typesetter/editor. I donâ??t know what percentage of them are, and I imagine that it would be relatively smallâ?¦ but, thereâ??s an explanation for some of them.

Although witness statements seem to preclude Joseph utilizing a Bible, I think it is still a possibility (and would make sense). Then again, perhaps his familiarity with the Bible was greater than we think, and as he â??translated,â? the language of the KJV was an easier reference-point for â??translationâ? than trying to render the passages into his own words (which itâ??s probably a good thing he did given his lack of proper command of Jacobian English).

It is an interesting and puzzling thing, especially when one views the variants that line up with Isaiah manuscripts/texts that Joseph would not have had access toâ?¦ and other variants that have no known source. And, like you said, when coupled with the â??errors and all,â? it does tend to create quite the paradox. We have errors being preserved in some instances, yet we have other passages that are seemingly rendered into a more accurate translation based on multiple Isaiah manuscripts/texts, and some variants that have no known parallel.

Of course, when the deutero-Isaiah junk is piled on top, we end up with an interesting situationâ?¦ one that perhaps we will never know the answer to... but dang if it ain't fun speculating about.

[Lamanite]

I unfortunately haven't had the pleasure of studying the critical text project, but I fortunately have had the opportunity to dialogue with some people who have. So, although this is a bit like the game of telephone, Don Bradley once related to me that it appears that some of the KJV Isaiah passages were the doing of the typesetter/editor. I donâ??t know what percentage of them are, and I imagine that it would be relatively smallâ?¦ but, thereâ??s an explanation for some of them.

Although witness statements seem to preclude Joseph utilizing a Bible, I think it is still a possibility (and would make sense). Then again, perhaps his familiarity with the Bible was greater than we think, and as he â??translated,â? the language of the KJV was an easier reference-point for â??translationâ? than trying to render the passages into his own words (which itâ??s probably a good thing he did given his lack of proper command of Jacobian English).

It is an interesting and puzzling thing, especially when one views the variants that line up with Isaiah manuscripts/texts that Joseph would not have had access toâ?¦ and other variants that have no known source. And, like you said, when coupled with the â??errors and all,â? it does tend to create quite the paradox. We have errors being preserved in some instances, yet we have other passages that are seemingly rendered into a more accurate translation based on multiple Isaiah manuscripts/texts.

Of course, when the deutero-Isaiah junk is piled on top, we end up with an interesting situationâ?¦ one that perhaps we will never know the answer to... but dang if it ain't fun speculating about.

deutero-Isaiah can be explained in my opinion, by Joseph receiving ideas through the interpreters or seer stone, and then giving them voice. If God however, gave the text, word for word in plain sight then I just can't understand why he wouldn't be concerned with anachronisms.

[Doctor Steuss]

deutero-Isaiah can be explained in my opinion, by Joseph receiving ideas through the interpreters or seer stone, and then giving them voice.

Kevin C. has given some interesting insights regarding deutero-Isaiah showing that it might date to a time frame that would have given Lehi and co. access to it. I'm not wholly convinced yet, and still find the DI passages problematic.

If God however, gave the text, word for word in plain sight then I just can't understand why he wouldn't be concerned with anachronisms.

Yeah, the tight/loose translation is a subject Iâ??ve never been able to completely come to a conclusion on. We have things like sheum, yet we also have anachronisms.

Maybe some days the seer-stone was transmitting in analog and some days G-d decided to upgrade to HD. Then again, maybe we're all wrong and the Hindus have it right.

*shrugs*

[Matthew J. Tandy]

deutero-Isaiah can be explained in my opinion, by Joseph receiving ideas through the interpreters or seer stone, and then giving them voice. If God however, gave the text, word for word in plain sight then I just can't understand why he wouldn't be concerned with anachronisms.

You could just write deutero-Isaiah off as being a bad idea... that Isaiah actually had revelations and that other people later added some cultural elements. Of course, then you have those cultural taints in the BoM, so that adds to the confusion.