David T Posted October 1, 2009 Author Share Posted October 1, 2009 Free copy? .....explainIt's included as a free gift with a subscription to one of BYU's publications. I subscribed to Journal of Book of Mormon and Restoration Scripture Studies (or whatever its called) and got this book in the mail within the week.Oliver's rod was a revelatory rod, meaning it was used to communicate with God. D&C 8 suggests that this is how he tried to translate. I think that the rod was used to receive revelation to things besides simple yes or no questions. I imagine it working the same way that the seer-stone did: a catalyst for revelation that gave him inspiration in the same way that you and I receive inspiration as the result of prayer.Just as a dowser would often close his eyes and concentrate while holding the rod, seeking guidance to be led to water. Perhaps for Oliver since it worked before in that context, he experimented, to a degree, in this new context. Link to comment
structurecop Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Oliver's rod was a revelatory rod, meaning it was used to communicate with God. D&C 8 suggests that this is how he tried to translate. Ah, like a magician's wand. Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 If people's entire lives were centered around what was said in the Gettysburg Address and Lincoln claimed to have unique revelatory powers that told him what to say, that might make sense.Not really.It would still be just as futile and silly. Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 We get that you think it's a pointless discussion. We still like talking about it.Actually, I appreciate the response.When I get NO response, I tend to keep trying."Talk amongst yourselves", even if it is futile. Link to comment
Joseph Antley Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Ah, like a magician's wand.Actually yes. Both Oliver's divining rod and Joseph's seer-stones seemed to have served their purpose as a catalyst in receiving revelation. I believe that Joseph later stated that he no longer had to use the stones because he had become so familiar with the Spirit (it was him giving up the stone that David Whitmer later had a big problem with). I believe that this probably coincided with around the time that they received the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Link to comment
robuchan Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 No. What does it say about the translation attempt?Your approach is patronizing and lame. If you have something to say, say it. Link to comment
LifeOnaPlate Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Your approach is patronizing and lame. If you have something to say, say it.I'm not trying to be patronizing, I'm asking you to substantiate your position by supplying evidence. If you have a source that says what you say it says, use it. Link to comment
robuchan Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I'm not trying to be patronizing, I'm asking you to substantiate your position by supplying evidence. If you have a source that says what you say it says, use it. I said OC attempted to translate the gold plates using his divining rod. I gave you the source. There's no more explanation needed. Link to comment
LifeOnaPlate Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I said OC attempted to translate the gold plates using his divining rod. I gave you the source. There's no more explanation needed.You mentioned a source that doesn't say what you say it says. That's the problem. Link to comment
robuchan Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 You mentioned a source that doesn't say what you say it says. That's the problem.Silly me. Link to comment
Joseph Antley Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I expected a more dramatic finale than that. Link to comment
David T Posted October 2, 2009 Author Share Posted October 2, 2009 Interesting enough, the original manuscript uses the terms 'sprout' and 'thing of nature'. Sidney Rigdon crossed them out, and replaced them with 'rod'. Link to comment
Joseph Antley Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Interesting enough, the original manuscript uses the terms 'sprout' and 'thing of nature'. Sidney Rigdon crossed them out, and replaced them with 'rod'.I noticed that too. Apparently they decided that "sprout" and "thing of nature" didn't sound scriptural enough. Link to comment
David T Posted October 2, 2009 Author Share Posted October 2, 2009 According to this, Emma's portion of working as scribe was December 1827?February 1828, before Martin Harris took over, and thus would be during the 'Book of Lehi' portion where, I think, Joseph was still 'in training'. Since all we know about this portion is that is was a 'more secular' record (and contained genealogical information), it appears not likely to me that it would have contained lengthy scriptural passages cited, a la the Small Plates. I guess that all her quote makes perfectly clear is that no Bible was consulted during her time as scribe, (which is for portions we don't even have anymore) and possibly on the occassions where she was specifically in the room during the translation. Link to comment
structurecop Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I guess that all her quote makes perfectly clear is that no Bible was consulted during her time as scribe, (which is for portions we don't even have anymore) and possibly on the occassions where she was specifically in the room during the translation.Excellent point. Link to comment
robuchan Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I expected a more dramatic finale than that.Sorry. The tangent on OC was pretty ridiculous, and I apologize for my part in it. I would have liked to see more in the direction of how to reconcile the expansion theory with the "head in hat English words appear" theory which I thought was generally accepted (including by Elder Nelson taught to a group of mission presidents and published in the Ensign). Link to comment
David T Posted October 2, 2009 Author Share Posted October 2, 2009 Sorry. The tangent on OC was pretty ridiculous, and I apologize for my part in it. I would have liked to see more in the direction of how to reconcile the expansion theory with the "head in hat English words appear" theory which I thought was generally accepted (including by Elder Nelson taught to a group of mission presidents and published in the Ensign).If the 'words in the hat' which Joseph 'saw' were the thoughts presented to his mind, then the merging of the Modern Expansions/Revelations could easily have been seen on/in/through the stone just as well as the Original Text. I think the expansion theory (at least the version I hold to) allows that Joseph himself did not discern between Original Ancient Text and the Modern Revealed Expansions. Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Sorry. The tangent on OC was pretty ridiculous, and I apologize for my part in it. I would have liked to see more in the direction of how to reconcile the expansion theory with the "head in hat English words appear" theory which I thought was generally accepted (including by Elder Nelson taught to a group of mission presidents and published in the Ensign).Let me say again that there is no conflict between these two positions since only Joseph could see those English words appear.He perceived them as he perceived them. The potential "conflict" was with what was "really" on the plates if that phrase even means anything.It's not like somebody was looking over his shoulder and saying "Hey- wait a minute! That's not what it said on the seer stone!-- and besides -- look at the plates! It doesn't even say that over here!"So no "reconcilation" is necessary or possible. What it says is what it says. Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 If the 'words in the hat' which Joseph 'saw' were the thoughts presented to his mind, then the merging of the Modern Expansions/Revelations could easily have been seen on/in/through the stone just as well as the Original Text. I think the expansion theory (at least the version I hold to) allows that Joseph himself did not discern between Original Ancient Text and the Modern Revealed Expansions.I think you were posting this while I was writing mine.We are saying practically the same thing. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.