Book of Mormon only spiritual

[Jeff K.]

tid:

It is irrelevant.

How do we know that prophecy did not direct Mormon to make that commentary within parameters understood by Joseph Smith? It seems you fail to consider that issue. No you would rather make the whole Book of Mormon a will o whisp.

No, the Book of Mormon is not a will o whisp, it is a written account of what has occurred in the past. And as a translation it may often place words in the most meaningful context required to get the message across.

I speak forthrightly and honestly regarding what I see. I have yet to see something that convinces you are something other than what you have presented here. Its a good thing you aren't allergic to wool.

[tld]

Simply put- his statements are arguing on behalf of a "tight" translation- they do not claim or support what you would pretend that say or support.

If you think Skousen is arguing for a "tight" translation - whatever that is - how do you account for the 16th and 17th century vocabulary?

[tld]

tid:

It is irrelevant.

How do we know that prophecy did not direct Mormon to make that commentary within parameters understood by Joseph Smith? It seems you fail to consider that issue. No you would rather make the whole Book of Mormon a will o whisp.

No, the Book of Mormon is not a will o whisp, it is a written account of what has occurred in the past. And as a translation it may often place words in the most meaningful context required to get the message across.

I speak forthrightly and honestly regarding what I see. I have yet to see something that convinces you are something other than what you have presented here. Its a good thing you aren't allergic to wool.

And you think this is evidence against Skousen?

[selek]

If you think Skousen is arguing for a "tight" translation - whatever that is - how do you account for the 16th and 17th century vocabulary?

This has been asked and answered, TLD.

Repeatedly.

It does not, however, address either the subject or the topic of the OP.

It does not, in any way, disguise the fact that your pet theory directly contradicts the teachings of the Church, or any of the other points I made.

Instead of waving your hands frantically trying to distract from these truths, why not try addressing them?

The Church has taught from the git-go that the Book of Mormon is historical, based upon real events and real people.

Your theory calls the Church- and all those who have taught this doctrine- a liar.

Stop derailing your own thread with irrelevancies and deal with the fundamentals of the preceding two sentences.

[selek]

Actually, Occam's Razor would suggest that the Book of Mormon was written by a human in the 19th Century.

Why?

Other than because you and others are prejudiced towards materialistic explanations, I mean?

There may, indeed, be a supernatural explanation, but I don't think it's reasonable to lean on Occam's Razor to prove it.

Again, why?

[selek]

And you think this is evidence against Skousen?

As stated, we need not disprove Skousen to debunk you- as you are deliberately misstating his position as supporting your own.

His arguments do nothing of the sort- remember, his position is "This really happened."

Not "This was a really great bit of allegory, fiction, or what if".

Skousen believed the events recorded in the book actually took place.

He said so himself.

[selek]

Apologies, TLD- I was conflating two different threads:

However, vis-a-vis, the sixteenth century language, I refer you to John A. Tvedtnes (who, like Skousen, is something of a big-wig in scholarly circles).

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=16&num=2&id=553

The publication of Royal Skousen's research on the textual history of the Book of Mormon not long before Wright's article appeared in print makes available for the first time typescripts of the extant original and complete printer's manuscripts of the Book of Mormon, including emendations made in the manuscripts themselves.3

This references the work to which Skousen himself referred in the article you cited.

He answers your questions about the 16th century language directly, thus:

Why would Joseph Smith adopt the style of the KJV while translating or dictating revelations? Nearly a century after the publication of the Book of Mormon, in 1913, Robert Henry Charles published his magnum opus, a two-volume translation of ancient texts known as The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament.17 Charles, like Joseph Smith, imitated the style of the King James Bible.18 Charles seems to have done so because the New Testament cited some of these works or earlier writings upon which they depended.19 And because the KJV was the Bible most commonly read in the English-speaking world at that time, using its style ensured that readers of Charles's work would more readily make the tie between them.

Jewish scholar Theodor H. Gaster intermingled KJV language and modern English in his Dead Sea Scriptures.20 When citing passages from the Dead Sea Scrolls that were also found in the Bible, he employed the older style of English. When Robert Lisle Lindsey began to work on the Gospel of Mark while living in Israel, he initially translated it "into simple modern Hebrew from the Greek text. The text was then distributed to Hebrew-speaking readers and comments invited." Many of those who reviewed the work expressed "the desire that the Gospels, as ancient works, should be read in Old Testament Hebrew style."21 Lindsey returned to the task and prepared a translation of Mark in biblical Hebrew that has received wide acclaim.

It is possible that the Book of Mormon would have met with the same fate as Lindsey's modern Hebrew version of Mark had Joseph Smith rendered it in nineteenth-century English. It would not have sounded scriptural to Americans and Englishmen familiar with the King James Bible. Another reason for using the KJV verbiage in the Book of Mormon is that it makes it easier for the reader to recognize when biblical books are being quoted by the Nephite prophets. In that respect, the language of the Book of Mormon fills the same role as Charles's translation of apocryphal and pseudepigraphic texts.

The phenomenon we see in the Book of Mormon is also known from the Bible. When New Testament writers included quotations from Isaiah or other Old Testament writings, they often employed the extant Greek translation known as the Septuagint rather than translate anew from the Hebrew text, even when the Greek text included translation errors. The same is true of the KJV itself, first published in 1611. Richard Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury, instructed the translators to revise the Bishops' Bible (first edition 1568, last 1606) rather than prepare a new translation but made it clear that the translators were free to make necessary corrections. Several generations of earlier English Bibles were essentially revisions of their predecessors, so that the KJV ended up with 80 percent of the text of Tyndale's English translation, published between 1524 and 1528. Tyndale himself used some of the language of the Wycliffe Bible, which was prepared during the latter part of the fourteenth century.

In short, there are any number of reasons why the "original English" texts of the Book of Mormon might include 16th century language- none of which require it to have been a "spiritual-only" event.

It is also interesting to note (before any of the critics start salivating" that Skousen does not buy into any of the pious fraud theories, nor to the idea that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century fraud.

As Skousen himself said it, "This really happened."

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 02 August 2010 - 09:01 PM, said:

tid:

It is irrelevant.

How do we know that prophecy did not direct Mormon to make that commentary within parameters understood by Joseph Smith? It seems you fail to consider that issue. No you would rather make the whole Book of Mormon a will o whisp.

No, the Book of Mormon is not a will o whisp, it is a written account of what has occurred in the past. And as a translation it may often place words in the most meaningful context required to get the message across.

I speak forthrightly and honestly regarding what I see. I have yet to see something that convinces you are something other

than what you have presented here. Its a good thing you aren't allergic to wool.

And you think this is evidence against Skousen?

It neither supports nor detracts from Skousen, Skousen's point, as Skousen himself has stated, is irrelevant. Selek brought up some other points, and when you consider them with mine, they pretty much leave open a plausible explanation for the anachronisms. Skousen did not say his position detracted from the Book of Mormon, only that he could not answer the anachronism. But even this is irrelevant to the idea of a whispy dream for the Book of Mormon.

You see, you realize you have lost with the one anti Mormon position, so you have migrated to another anti Mormon position. Almost like the ghost you claim the Book of Mormon to be.

[tld]

This has been asked and answered, TLD.

Repeatedly.

It does not, however, address either the subject or the topic of the OP.

It does not, in any way, disguise the fact that your pet theory directly contradicts the teachings of the Church, or any of the other points I made.

Instead of waving your hands frantically trying to distract from these truths, why not try addressing them?

The Church has taught from the git-go that the Book of Mormon is historical, based upon real events and real people.

Your theory calls the Church- and all those who have taught this doctrine- a liar.

Stop derailing your own thread with irrelevancies and deal with the fundamentals of the preceding two sentences.

I have been consistent in my position that the text of the BoM came from the spirit world. Skousen's statements seem to corroborate this. It did not come from JS, it did not come from a direct translation, so where else would it have come from?

The Church at one time taught polygamy and that black males could not receive the priesthood. It also promoted an aborted attempt to establish Zion in Missouri. It has recovered from these mistakes. If it is a mistake to think that the BoM is a direct translation of an ancient record and the Church should decide to correct this misperception. then I am certain the Church and its members would recover from this. However, being realistic, I doubt that anyone is going to take my suggestion seriously.

[selek]

I have been consistent in my position that the text of the BoM came from the spirit world. Skousen's statements seem to corroborate this. It did not come from JS, it did not come from a direct translation, so where else would it have come from?

Skousen states unequivocally that the Book of Mormon is based upon actual events.

That simple statement shoots down your effort to mischaracterize his arguments as supporting your own..

Anything short of a frank acknowledgement of the fact is to engage in sophistry and misdirection.

The Church at one time taught polygamy and that black males could not receive the priesthood. It also promoted an aborted attempt to establish Zion in Missouri. It has recovered from these mistakes.

You mean from what you in your arrogance DECLARE are mistakes.

Reasonable minds disagree with your arbitrary declaration.

If it is a mistake to think that the BoM is a direct translation of an ancient record and the Church should decide to correct this misperception. then I am certain the Church and its members would recover from this. However, being realistic, I doubt that anyone is going to take my suggestion seriously.

Have you seen the Star Trek episode "The Trouble With Tribbles"?

To paraphrase Captain Kirk, "We take your attempt to preach false doctrine very seriously. It is YOU we take lightly."

[tld]

He answers your questions about the 16th century language directly, thus:

Why would Joseph Smith adopt the style of the KJV while translating or dictating revelations?

JS had nothing to do with the original text of the BoM. He reported exactly what he saw on his seer stone.

In short, there are any number of reasons why the "original English" texts of the Book of Mormon might include 16th century language- none of which require it to have been a "spiritual-only" event.

Sorry, there is only one reason. It was introduced in the spirit world.

As Skousen himself said it, "This really happened."

What really happened? JS wrote the BoM? JS translated the BoM directly from the plates? JS received the text of the BoM by way of his seer stone? I choose the latter.

[tld]

Skousen states unequivocally that the Book of Mormon is based upon actual events.

That simple statement shoots down your effort to mischaracterize his arguments as supporting your own..

But he also denies that it was a direct translation from the Gold Plates. Yes, it is possible that the people of the BoM actually existed and that they kept a record on Gold Plates. But if they did, JS did not translate what became the BoM directly from those plates. Some other entity would have had to do the translating, add the 16th and 17th century vocabulary, the anachronisms such as quotes from the King James Bible, and then reveal it word by world to Joseph Smith by way of his seer stone.

However, there is no solid (on the ground) evidence that the people of the BoM actually existed. Only circumstantial evidence, and that is minimal. We are told in the Book of Moses that God created everyone spiritually before they were created physically. If this is the case, then a source for the BoM already existed in the spirit world.

Anything short of a frank acknowledgement of the fact is to engage in sophistry and misdirection.

You mean from what you in your arrogance DECLARE are mistakes.

Reasonable minds disagree with your arbitrary declaration.

And reasonable minds agree with my statement regarding past mistakes. Unfortunately, it appears that few of them participate on this board.

Have you seen the Star Trek episode "The Trouble With Tribbles"?

To paraphrase Captain Kirk, "We take your attempt to preach false doctrine very seriously. It is YOU we take lightly."

Sticks and stones ...

[Jeff K.]

What really happened? JS wrote the BoM? JS translated the BoM directly from the plates? JS received the text of the BoM by way of his seer stone? I choose the latter.

0

What you prefer to believe is not congruent with what Skousen clearly states. The events of the Book of Mormon happened. Not is some spiritual vacuum (which you seem to be in) but in real events in this life. The context is clear. You however are ephemeral.

[tld]

The events of the Book of Mormon happened.

This is a statement of faith, not of fact.

[Jeff K.]

This is a statement of faith, not of fact.

So too is the crucifixion of Christ. What is your point? That Christs crucifixion never happened in this life, that it was something that happened in the spirit world?

Or that the ten commandments occurred in the spirit world along with Moses?

[tld]

So too is the crucifixion of Christ. What is your point? That Christs crucifixion never happened in this life, that it was something that happened in the spirit world?

Or that the ten commandments occurred in the spirit world along with Moses?

You seemed to state it as a fact, not a belief.

[Jeff K.]

And you skirt the issue.

Again whats your point? Afraid to apply the anti Mormon screed across the board towards other Christian views?

[tld]

And you skirt the issue.

Again whats your point? Afraid to apply the anti Mormon screed across the board towards other Christian views?

The Jesus Christ of the Gospels and the Ten Commandments should be reserved for another discussion. I would prefer to limit this thread to the BoM. You believe that the events described in the BoM actually occurred. I get the impression that you believe JS actually translated the BoM from Gold Plates. I believe that there is legitimate doubt regarding the coming forth of the BoM and the reliability of some of its content, and I have presented some of my reasons for that doubt. Regarding the coming forth of the BoM, I have argued, and presented as evidence Royal Skousen's work, as to the improbability that JS wrote the BoM or that it was an actual translation from Gold Plates. For me, this leaves only revelation. I am not quite sure where you stand on this. Do you think that JS translated the BoM from the Gold Plates and then added quotes from the King James Bible and intentionally tried to make it appear as if it came from the 16th or 17th century? What is your view on this?

[StuddleyG]

Good point. I don't know that I have a satisfactory answer, but as I consider one I am faced with the dilemma of just what it means to create everything spiritually before it is created physically. Specifically with regard to the people of the BoM, did God (whom we assume did the creating) create Laman and Lemuel to perform the roles of villains while Nephi was given the role of hero? Or did their roles evolve, as well as all of the other events of the BoM, during the creative process? In any case, by the time that all of the people of the BoM had been created spiritually, we assume that God knew what would transpire during the physical creation, should it occur. Now, in my mind, it gets increasingly complicated. Is the spiritual creation analogous to the writing of a play and the physical creation analogous to the acting of the play? If so, souls must be selected to play the various characters in the play. This makes sense if we believe that the angel Michael played the role of Adam.

To get back to your point, my suggestion is that the play was written but never performed. The text of the play was delivered to Joseph Smith by revelation. It would be essentially the same as if the play had been acted out in the physical world and someone had written a text of the performance. The play assumes that the characters will have physical bodies, but this does not necessarily mean that the characters in the play were ever actually embodied.

If everything is a play. where does free willl fit in?

[tld]

If everything is a play. where does free willl fit in?

First, a spirit or soul probably has the freedom to choose whether or not to incarnate in a particular body. Second, there may be opportunities to improvise. There is also the possibility that the play is constantly being revised and updated based upon the choices that are made by the actors. But there are probably some events that are predestined to occur (e.g. the passion play). It is a good question though.

[Jeff K.]

The Jesus Christ of the Gospels and the Ten Commandments should be reserved for another discussion. I would prefer to limit this thread to the BoM.

Chuckle, of course you would. Otherwise you could not skirt an inconvenient truth. If you cannot apply to the goose, then you should not attempt to stuff the gander. You want to compartmentalize your comments to the Book of Mormon because if you had tried the same thing with the crucifixion of Christ or the time of Moses (ie making them spiritual non entities in this life) the ludicrous nature of your argument would be exposed. I am sorry but I will not let you off the hook.

If it applies to the Book of Mormon, then you should apply it to the Old Testament and the crucifixion. Are you prepared to declare, because we see no evidence of the Crucifixion of Christ and no evidence of Moses and his time, that they too are figments of the spirit world?

You believe that the events described in the BoM actually occurred. I get the impression that you believe JS actually translated the BoM from Gold Plates. I believe that there is legitimate doubt regarding the coming forth of the BoM and the reliability of some of its content, and I have presented some of my reasons for that doubt. Regarding the coming forth of the BoM, I have argued, and presented as evidence Royal Skousen's work, as to the improbability that JS wrote the BoM or that it was an actual translation from Gold Plates. For me, this leaves only revelation. I am not quite sure where you stand on this. Do you think that JS translated the BoM from the Gold Plates and then added quotes from the King James Bible and intentionally tried to make it appear as if it came from the 16th or 17th century? What is your view on this?

When you use the word "believe" and then say there is some legitimate doubt, I suggest you think about the fact that belief and faith exist in some portion because of doubt.

As to evidence, you have presented no evidence. You presented a supposition that the Maya and Nephites and Lamanites were somehow all tied together when in fact that is your supposition, not evidence. So until you do provide evidence that the Book of Mormon took place in some ghostly world of non entities (which of course is refuted by Joseph Smith and other apostles. Until you can provide some prophetic or apostolic basis, along with scripture. Until you produce something of value. You are as empty as the ghosts you claim existed in the Book of Mormon, and not in real life.

Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites

[Jeff K.]

First, a spirit or soul probably has the freedom to choose whether or not to incarnate in a particular body. Second, there may be opportunities to improvise. There is also the possibility that the play is constantly being revised and updated based upon the choices that are made by the actors. But there are probably some events that are predestined to occur (e.g. the passion play). It is a good question though.

A spirit can choose not to take a body. Therefore there are bodies without spirits. Hmmmm... Now that would take some doing.

Improvisation? In other words there is no prophecy, only improv..... thats laughable.

[selek]

The irony in all this, of course, is watching TLD tout Skousen's opinion as Gospel-truth when distorting his words to support a position Skousen himself never took, and then throwing him under the bus when Skousen explicitly rejects TLD's base premise.

TLD demands that Skousen's opinion be treated as unalterable fact when 'supporting' TLD's polemical, yet in the same breath tosses him under the bus for flatly rejecting the same polemical.

The intellectual dishonesty and blatant hypocrisy in such a stance is truly awe-inspiring.

Earlier, I posted two inescapable truths regarding TLD's new gospel.

I have discovered a third- that in trying to dissuade him from his new-found creed, we are arguing with a zealot who will distort and defame, decieve and decry in order to ignore the clay feet of his new-found idol.

As such, we're wasting our breath.

The teaching of the Church, the witness of the Spirit, the Book of Mormon itself, and TLD's 'own' experts all proclaim these events actually took place.

His paeon to his own ego is simply an attempt to accomodate himself to the pomp of Babylon. Verily, he hath his reward.

And as far as Skousen's opinion about Joseph repeating verbatim from a prepared manuscript, I wonder how he deals with the very clear fallout of Rigdon's attempts to translate.

How can it be a verbatim recitation if it must first be 'puzzled out'?

Joseph (and the Lord) said that the translation was not simply given up without thought or effort.

Doesn't that undermine the very concept of a 'rote' translation?

[tld]

A spirit can choose not to take a body. Therefore there are bodies without spirits. Hmmmm... Now that would take some doing.

Improvisation? In other words there is no prophecy, only improv..... thats laughable.

Boy, you really have an attitude problem.

In any case, there are numerous pre-birth accounts of spirits being able to review several possible lives and then choose the body in which they want to incarnate. If a particular life involves, for example, having a deformed body, a spirit would be able to turn down that particular life and choose another. Obviously, the body begins its development upon conception.

[Jeff K.]

Boy, you really have an attitude problem.

In any case, there are numerous pre-birth accounts of spirits being able to review several possible lives and then choose the body in which they want to incarnate. If a particular life involves, for example, having a deformed body, a spirit would be able to turn down that particular life and choose another. Obviously, the body begins its development upon conception.

Saturday's Warrior is not found in the Doctrine and Covenants.

What you state is in error and not found in our doctrine. What church are you smoking?