BOM translation and inerrancy

[Lareliw]

Thank you so much for the resources, I will have to look at those! I have bookmarked them and I will see what I can find!

Two great sources of information are www.fairlds.org (a third party LDS Apologetics organization) and www.maxwellinstitute.byu.org (this is FARMS the Official Apologetics organization of the LDS Church)

Both have a wealth of information about BoM geography and many more LDS topics.

[Kiviuq]

Assuming the translation was perfect, we would then need to explore if the original authors correctly recorded the word of God. Perhaps these prophets

[Calm]

If the BOM was inspired by God, recorded by prophets, and translated under divine inspiration, is it inerrant?

Why does Nephi say "Nevertheless, I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred. And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness that is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself"? (1 Nephi 19:6.)

Why does Mormon say "if we could have written in Hebrew, there would have been no imperfection in our record"?

Wouldn't any human errors or imperfections have been edited out in the translation process?

Unless the equivalent of God standing over the prophets' shoulders either guiding their hand or correcting them as they went like a Suzuki method music teacher as they recorded their work, then there was undoubtedly errors occurring at their end. We have a lot better technology available to us with spellcheckers and the ability to erase and rewrite without leaving a trace and there are still constantly errors popping up even in the most meticulous of writers. I suspect Mormon was exaggerating about the perfection of the work or just viewing it in comparison (as in after one read the work of a 5 year old, his response to the work of a Ph.D. candidate might be "it was perfect!"), Mormon's comment was born, imo, out of frustration of knowing that he wasn't showing his best work because of his tools....a touch of the pride of a good craftsman showing there, imo.)

I see the BoM translation process along the lines of this analogy, the original writers created a record (I'm talking about an lp), they were inspired in much of what they said but it was their creation and their tools and their writing skills that went into the production of that record, thus it was imperfect even if inspired. Those records (the plates) were then played for Joseph Smith using the perfect record player (the Spirit), which transmitted a perfect replica of the imperfect record; this process included altering the words/music so that the one listening would be able to understand what was being said. There were, however, things outside of Joseph's experience that were recorded so alternatives to a direct translation had to be found. It would appear in a couple of places the original words were used (such a curelom), other places it is possible that similar, but not exact terms were substituted so that the context was kept though not identical in terminology to the original (much as like happens when making a 'child's edition' of an adult level book). Joseph Smith then recorded what he heard to the best of his ability, often aided by the Spirit, but not in such a way that the Spirit drowned out Joseph's impressions of what he was hearing, but rather the Spirit would add depth and understanding to what he was hearing when Joseph was open up to being taught by the Spirit in this way. IOW, there were a variety of inputs contributing to the overall process, some perfect, some not and therefore the final product can be said to be inspired(to what degree the only way to find out is through inspiration for oneself), but not inerrant.

[Calm]

Assuming the translation was perfect, we would then need to explore if the original authors correctly recorded the word of God. Perhaps these prophets

[cinepro]

I have so many questions but I cannot ask them directly yet as I do not believe I am allowed to create posts at this point, which is fine I was wondering about the BOM and if there is any historical corroboration for the events written about, such as the move from Israel to the Americas, and other events that occur, various battles and such. I am currently reading the BOM for the first time, so I am still working on learning various things. There is quite a bit of historical evidence (archaeological, etc) for the Bible and I was wondering if the same holds true for the BOM. I eagerly await your answers!

http://tinyurl.com/5sgtu39

[maklelan]

I'm not sure I do, but you said "If they were written under God's inspiration in the first place then He would have corrected anything He didn't want when they were first written."

That would seem to imply that you believe it's inerrant, no?

Where did I say that?

[Jason]

Unless the equivalent of God standing over the prophets' shoulders either guiding their hand or correcting them as they went like a Suzuki method music teacher as they recorded their work, then there was undoubtedly errors occurring at their end. We have a lot better technology available to us with spellcheckers and the ability to erase and rewrite without leaving a trace and there are still constantly errors popping up even in the most meticulous of writers. I suspect Mormon was exaggerating about the perfection of the work or just viewing it in comparison (as in after one read the work of a 5 year old, his response to the work of a Ph.D. candidate might be "it was perfect!"), Mormon's comment was born, imo, out of frustration of knowing that he wasn't showing his best work because of his tools....a touch of the pride of a good craftsman showing there, imo.)

I would agree. Mormon wasn't making a claim that the record would be completely without error if it had been kept in Hebrew, merely that there would have been many less errors - likely because he was using a mode of writing that was not widely used in Nephite society. It's quite possible that "Reformed Egyptian" was used only by the priests keeping records.

I see the translation process as Joseph being granted the meaning behind the characters through the Spirit, and having to then provide his own English text version of that meaning, albeit with the aid of the Spirit. That means that his translation wasn't perfect either - and this is bourne out by Joseph later going back and making some minor corrections to later editions of the BoM.

[Hughes]

I have so many questions but I cannot ask them directly yet as I do not believe I am allowed to create posts at this point, which is fine I was wondering about the BOM and if there is any historical corroboration for the events written about, such as the move from Israel to the Americas, and other events that occur, various battles and such. I am currently reading the BOM for the first time, so I am still working on learning various things. There is quite a bit of historical evidence (archaeological, etc) for the Bible and I was wondering if the same holds true for the BOM. I eagerly await your answers!

I think what you'll find, as you research this question. Is that believing Mormons talk about potential sites and potential artifacts, and things having potential to be archeologically supportive. Those who don't believe Joseph Smith notice that there is a complete lack of actual physical evidence. Which leads to the question of how to corroborate what was supposedly written on the plates and if it's accurate to the BoM, of which again those who believe see it as locked in stone, but those who are looking for actual physical evidence such as we have for the Bible, it isn't there. In fact believers will admit that it has to be taken on faith, as there's no way to corroborate what was on the Plates or not.

Have fun in your research, and don't just read the apologetic explanations, get a full view of the situation.

[Deborah]

Wouldn't any human errors or imperfections have been edited out in the translation process?

Actually many errors were made in the editing, transcribing or printing process. Joseph had to go in and correct things his transcribers wrote and we know there were errors at the printing end.

[thesometimesaint]

Hughes:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

[Robert F. Smith]

www.maxwellinstitute.byu.org (this is FARMS the Official Apologetics organization of the LDS Church)

FARMS is the official apologetics organization of the LDS Church? Are you sure? CFR

[Robert F. Smith]

Believing Mormons talk about potential sites and potential artifacts, and things having potential to be archeologically supportive. Those who don't believe Joseph Smith notice that there is a complete lack of actual physical evidence. Which leads to the question of how to corroborate what was supposedly written on the plates and if it's accurate to the BoM, of which again those who believe see it as locked in stone, but those who are looking for actual physical evidence such as we have for the Bible, it isn't there. In fact believers will admit that it has to be taken on faith, as there's no way to corroborate what was on the Plates or not.

Hughes,

Is this a true account of what well-informed Book of Mormon believers say? When have you heard them use the word "potential" as you so loosely do? Do they say that "it has to be taken on faith," and do they admit that "there's no way to corroborate what was on the Plates or not"? Is there really such a disjuncture in physical evidence between the Bible and the Book of Mormon? Am I wrong to think that this all sounds like what an anti-Mormon might say, not a well-informed believer in either the Bible or the Book of Mormon? Moreover, have you actually read serious discussions of the various types of evidence which might be used to bring to bear on historical questions?

[Lareliw]

Good call. It is best to read from all sides, not just apologetics and also not hatemongering. Sometimes it is difficult to sort out what is what beforehand, since many times the slant is subtle.

I think what you'll find, as you research this question. Is that believing Mormons talk about potential sites and potential artifacts, and things having potential to be archeologically supportive. Those who don't believe Joseph Smith notice that there is a complete lack of actual physical evidence. Which leads to the question of how to corroborate what was supposedly written on the plates and if it's accurate to the BoM, of which again those who believe see it as locked in stone, but those who are looking for actual physical evidence such as we have for the Bible, it isn't there. In fact believers will admit that it has to be taken on faith, as there's no way to corroborate what was on the Plates or not.

Have fun in your research, and don't just read the apologetic explanations, get a full view of the situation.

[Lareliw]

I keep seeing CFR, what does that stand for?

FARMS is the official apologetics organization of the LDS Church? Are you sure? CFR

[Lareliw]

Thank you, I already did that and due to the overwhelming number of links and limited amount of time I have to devote to personal *not homework* research, I thought it prudent to ask here for the most useful resources.

http://tinyurl.com/5sgtu39

[Nathair/|\]

I keep seeing CFR, what does that stand for?

It stands for Call For References. It's one of the most important rules around here. If you make an assertion and someone challenges it, you have to support your claim or retract.

[Lareliw]

That helps a lot of things make a whole lot more sense! And it makes a lot of sense to be able to support what you are saying, and how nice to have a little abbreviation for it

It stands for Call For References. It's one of the most important rules around here. If you make an assertion and someone challenges it, you have to support your claim or retract.

[Calm]

That helps a lot of things make a whole lot more sense! And it makes a lot of sense to be able to support what you are saying, and how nice to have a little abbreviation for it

And please feel comfortable with asking anyone to support their position...if only so you can understand it better, giving a CFR does not have to be only because one disagrees with the comment or is even unfamiliar with it, it can be for just more detail or context. If someone complains about having to do the work to support what they've claimed, it's usually a pretty good sign they are not so sure they could do it so the CFR even gives you a little information if the person ignores it, lol.

[Robert F. Smith]

Two great sources of information are www.fairlds.org (a third party LDS Apologetics organization) and www.maxwellinstitute.byu.org (this is FARMS the Official Apologetics organization of the LDS Church)

Both have a wealth of information about BoM geography and many more LDS topics.

LDS Guy,

Since you refuse to CFR about this ridiculous claim, let me state it clearly for you: FARMS is not "the Official Apologetics organization of the LDS Church." Nor is the Neal A. Maxwell Institute, even though both have performed important work in defense of the faith. In fact, you are the only person I have ever found making such an absurd claim. Did someone tell you that? If so, who? Did you see it in writing? If so, where?

[zerinus]

If the BOM was inspired by God, recorded by prophets, and translated under divine inspiration, is it inerrant?

That depends on what you mean by inerrant. If you mean that there cannot be a spelling mistake in it, or a copying error in it, then it isn't. If you mean that there cannot be anything in it that can lead us away from the paths of truth and righteousness that leads to God, in that sense it is inerrant. Also, if you mean that it is a standard by which we can determine true doctrine, in that sense it is also inerrant. That is what I understand by inerrancy.

Why does Nephi say "Nevertheless, I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred. And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness that is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself"? (1 Nephi 19:6.)

He is humble enough to recognize his human frailty, which can cause him to err. But it is his intent what matters, which is not to err. Jesus also said, "Why callest thou me good?" (Matthew 19:17). That doesn't mean that He wasn't good!

Why does Mormon say "if we could have written in Hebrew, there would have been no imperfection in our record"?

He is contrasting writing in Hebrew (script), with writing in the "Reformed Egyptian" script. The latter script enables them to condense their writing, as in shorthand; but apparently at the expense of some clarity.

Wouldn't any human errors or imperfections have been edited out in the translation process?

That is a distinct possibility. In fact, there are signs in the Book of Mormon that that is what might have happened.

[zerinus]

If God had translated himself, there wouldn't have been any errors. Just because I may be inspired in my actions doesn't mean I will perform them flawlessly. I will perform them, however, at a level that will satisfy God, the source of the inspiration, and that will be sufficient for His purposes.

I believe to all intents and purposes we can say that the Book of Mormon was translated by God Himself, even though He used Joseph as the human agent through whom to accomplish it.

[emilysmith]

The translation process was an interesting one, from what I understand. Sometimes, Joseph Smith would look into a hat with the magic stones in it and see the translation, then speak what he saw to the scribe. Sometimes, the magic aspects of it were not necessary.

Clearly, errors were made, and as much has been admitted, though I think the nature of the changes has been down-played as much as possible.

"It is true that when the Book of Mormon was printed the printer was a man who was unfriendly. The publication of the book was done under adverse circumstances, and there were a few errors, mostly typographical

[LeSellers]

Clearly, errors were made, and as much has been admitted, though I think the nature of the changes has been down-played as much as possible.

Your view is your privilege, but I believe it is far too cynical. By far the most changes in the Book of Mormon text, from printing to printing, were to correct typographical errors. By definition, they are not the fault of the translator or the translation process.

Those errors that were actually scribal (as opposed to printer) errors (e.g., "Sun" for "Son") can hardly be ascribed to Joseph Smith nor to the Power of God.

It is obvious from the words of Joseph Smith, that he did not advertise the work as anything but a very accurate translation. "Most correct book on earth" are his words on one occasion. Of course, this depends on Joseph Smith's own view of what correct is in that context.

Indeed, it does. The context you refer to is this: "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct book on earth, and the keystone of our religion and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than [following those of] any other book." This statement had nothing at all to do with the translation: it was about the thing taught in it.

Further, the volume to which Joseph referred was the 1840 (or thereabouts

[zerinus]

The translation process was an interesting one, from what I understand. Sometimes, Joseph Smith would look into a hat with the magic stones in it and see the translation, then speak what he saw to the scribe. Sometimes, the magic aspects of it were not necessary.

Clearly, errors were made, and as much has been admitted, though I think the nature of the changes has been down-played as much as possible.

Since the original manuscript, that was dictated by Joseph Smith, has been largely lost, one cannot say what mistakes were made in the translation process, if at all. What we have is the printer

[emilysmith]

Zerinus,

I am baffled at your post. You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. Everything you posit is conjecture without a single reference to back it up. It is as if you just want to create a scenario where anything is possible and any information presented against your point of view is useless. This is clearly not the case. Changes have been made that are more than just spelling and grammatical despite some claims otherwise. You are welcome to theorize all you like as to how God, if he exists and if he was involved in the creation of the Book of Mormon, allowed these inconsistencies. You are wrong about some suggestions you made, but they are irrelevant in relation to that main point.

Tell me, do you think "is" and "are," in King's James English, are interchangeable? Are you suggesting that changes of this nature were not made?