116 Pages ?

[Brant Gardner]

1. I am not convinced that Joseph Smith "tended to use the word translation in a much broader scope than we now use it." What evidence do you have for this claim?

Webster's 1828 dictionary, 6th definition (and the first dealing with language) To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one langauge in the words of another. . . 7. To explain.

With that context of what the current usage was, it opens the possibility that Joseph's use was different from what we assume. Then we check with the evidence and the conclusion is that he fits the "to interpret" and "to explain" as often (if not more) than "render into another language"--although he certainly understood that two languages were involved.

I know that Mormons sometimes make this claim when confronted with evidence that Joseph's "translation" of the Bible are not restorations of the original text, but the argument is fallacious: because Joseph failed to produce that kind of "translation" does not mean he didn't think that was what he was doing.

I am of no mind to try to defend what other people have said. I can only work from the research I have done.

2. If your generalities about the nature of the material in the Book of Mormon replacing the lost manuscript is supported only by your "experience with the text," this isn't something I can address.

Agreed. Any one of those points is the result of a much longer argument that you cannot critique if it is not available.

The KJV, NIV, and The Message are demonstrably three English versions of the same book, the Bible, even though they are very different in terms of their wording and style. Had Joseph produced two very different "translations" of the same plates that would have been equally demonstrable and obvious regardless of the differences, if in fact he was really translating the plates at all.

That would be a much stronger argument in a world where the NIV and The Message existed and there were communities explaining the nature of translation. I don't see any evidence that Joseph (or anyone else around him) new more than the KJV (so much so that it provided flavor to their written language--probably everyday speech).

If things were different, they could have been different. A bit of a tautology, so not altogether useful.

I also confess that I am arguing from the standpoint of the whole context of evidence of how Joseph translated, and that evidence won't be publicly available for a few more weeks. I recognize that it puts you at a disadvantage because you don't know where I am coming from.

[stemelbow]

So, if Lucy isn't involved in the conspiracy, that raises many more questions about her disposition during the entire scenario.

yOu make an interesting point. But in all her efforts to stop her husband's involvement, she was unsuccessful. Perhaps this was the best she had left? She had the manuscript, realized taking it wasn't going to stop her husband, so she considered other options to defraud it all.

I don't know how realistic this is or not. That's not even my point. It was Rob intent to show the D&C revelation untrue. Since possibilities abound, in between the meager bits of information, his proven wrong theory seems filled with holes. perhaps just me.

[Jaybear]

Brant,

Yes, we have different understandings of the issues here.

The difference is that you are addressing the question of how did Smith purport or claim to translate the BOM.

To address that question, one would ordinarily look at (1) what he actually said; and if nothing was available; look at (2) how those in close proximity to Smith understood how the process worked. Presumably their understanding would be based on what Smith told them, or what they gleaned from his behavior.

Brant, by contrast, is addressing the question of how did Smith translate the BOM.

Brant assumes that Smith actually translated the BOM, and assumes that he would have claimed to have translated the book in the same manner than he actually translated the book. With those assumption the "textual" evidence then becomes more relevant.

Brant's question is really only something that can be debated by believers.

NOTE: when Brant says ... "Your argument has any validity only upon accepting the premise that divine inspiration necessarily creates inerrancy." ... he is simply wrong.

Your argument is valid only if Smith's target audience believed that the translation process as described by Smith should lead to an inerrant result.

[KevinG]

NOTE: when Brant says ... "Your argument has any validity only upon accepting the premise that divine inspiration necessarily creates inerrancy." ... he is simply wrong.

Your argument is valid only if Smith's target audience believed that the translation process as described by Smith should lead to an inerrant result.

Just to be clear the Saints (that know their doctrine) don't believe that the result was inerrant either. There are potential errors in communication and interpretations in every prayer, translation, blessing and utterance that filters through the hands of mortal man.

Mormon 8:17And if there be ^afaults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that ^bcondemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of h*** fire.

[Ahab]

DaddyG,

Thanks for your comment.

In the Gospels, Jesus taught his disciples that it was a good thing to ask God more than once for something. Even Jesus asked the Father three times to take the cup away if it were possible. So in principle there is nothing wrong with making repeated requests to God for the same thing. If the answer was still No, then God tricked Joseph by saying Yes. Sorry, but this explanation only makes matters worse.

God telling Joseph "No" would not take away his "agency." Assuming Joseph prayed about it and was told no, at any time Joseph could have ignored what God said and let Martin take the manuscript home.

I'm not sure that you understand the nature of the question Joseph was asking and what God meant by giving his answer. It's not as if God messed up by giving a different answer.

Joseph was asking God if he should give the plates to Martin so Martin could show them around, and then God answered by telling him No.

Joseph asked again, and then God again said No... as in, No you should not give the plates to Martin so Martin could show them around.

Joseph then asked again, a 3rd time, and this time God thought something like this:

Good grief. How many times are you going to keep asking me that same question? You did hear what I told you, and I know you heard me. Okay, sure, go ahead and let him have the plates now, since it appears that he wants to show them off so much. I know what's going to happen, though, and that's the reason I was telling you No in the first place, but since I've also already made arrangements for how all of this is going to turn out, which is why I had each prophet write their original manuscripts with Mormon preparing a summary translation, go ahead and give Martin those 116 pages. You're going to suffer for it, though, a little bit. For a while I'm going to take away your ability to translate, because you kept asking me the same question over and over again while hoping to get a different answer instead of just taking the answer I gave you. I know what was going on here, Joseph, but for your profit and learning, I will help you learn from this lesson.

Moral of the story: IF you keep bugging God for a different answer after he's already given you an answer, he's going to give you a different answer to help you learn from your mistake.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Ahab

[Xander]

For me the problem of the missing 116 pages is best explained in the South Park episode, when a zealous Mormon teen preparing for his mission explains the entire situation, only to hear from his neighbor, "Wait a minute, you mean you know this and you still believe?"

Either Joseph Smith translated ancient plates or he produced it on his own, using his imagination, among other things. I think we can all agree on this. If he provided a legitimate translation from an Ancient American record written upon metal plates, then there really is no reason why he couldn't do it twice. It makes little sense to think God hassled the Ancient Americans for so long to record their history in such a way, just to let it all get tossed out the window because of some careless 19th century house wife. Especially after God granted Joseph Smith permission in the first place (didn't God know?). This scenario is really incoherent and self contradicting in so many ways.

However, the alternative scenario is even more problematic. If there was no Ancient American record, then this means Joseph Smith was intentionally commiting fraud. And so what happened is precisely what one would expect if this the whole Book of Mormon thing were a shamSo the subsequent chain of events is exactly what the critics would expect to happen if the whole thing was a sham. If he created from his mind, a story based on 116 pages of text, then Joseph Smith knew it was virtually impossible to repeat that process and come up with the same exact story. So when he lost the only copy he had, he knew he would be putting everything at risk by trying to reproduce the translation. Why? Because what if he retranslated it and then a few months later the original translation resurfaced and it clearly didn't resemble the second translation? He was cognizant of this problem so he clearly had to come up with some reason why he couldn't provide another translation. And the answer, was of course, the usual unfalsifiable kind; God told him not to... as a punishment, of course. Centuries of record keeping went all for naught, simply because Mrs. Harris was careless. We're all paying the price here. An entire Restoration loses big time, as future generations are deprived of all the spiritually uplifting stories that were contained therein. How tragic.

[Balzer]

Thanks everyone for the replies. Very informative. Eyebrows still raised.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[Brant Gardner]

If he provided a legitimate translation from an Ancient American record written upon metal plates, then there really is no reason why he couldn't do it twice.

Right. I'm sure Joseph thought so at all. Unfortunately, the issue isn't whether he could have translated it again, but whether the new translation would be precisely equal to the one that went before. The issue is the expectation of inerrancy.

That conceptual framework also informs many of the witness descriptions of the translation who, without any known reason for saying so, transformed the process into an inerrant one in their translation.

[keith_brian]

Right. I'm sure Joseph thought so at all. Unfortunately, the issue isn't whether he could have translated it again, but whether the new translation would be precisely equal to the one that went before. The issue is the expectation of inerrancy.

That conceptual framework also informs many of the witness descriptions of the translation who, without any known reason for saying so, transformed the process into an inerrant one in their translation.

But, don't Mormons believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God that has the ability to come down and physically speak to people if the need arises? If so, why not just have Jesus come down in person and correct the portions of the BoM that JS mistranslated when he was retranslating the 116 lost pages? I mean, surely Jesus would have a good enough memory to tell JS where his translation was different, no matter how loose of a translation JS was doing.

Or, why couldn't God have struck the evil men dead or taken the 116 pages from them (as he apparently did with the gold plates from JS for losing the 116 pages)?

There are many, many simpler ways to deal with the loss of 116 pages from a translated text, especially when you're doing the translation at the behest of an all-powerful being and have his power backing you up.

At least, I can think of many simpler ways.

[cinepro]

yOu make an interesting point. But in all her efforts to stop her husband's involvement, she was unsuccessful.

Was she? What was Martin's financial stake following the loss of the 116 pages? He gave Joseph $50 in silver in November of 1827, but what did he do after the 116 pages were lost in the summer of 1828?

[Glenn101]

Was she? What was Martin's financial stake following the loss of the 116 pages? He gave Joseph $50 in silver in November of 1827, but what did he do after the 116 pages were lost in the summer of 1828?

Martin did mortgage his farm and provide the financing of the first printing of the Book of Mormon, did he not?

Glenn

[TAO]

But, don't Mormons believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God that has the ability to come down and physically speak to people if the need arises? If so, why not just have Jesus come down in person and correct the portions of the BoM that JS mistranslated when he was retranslating the 116 lost pages? I mean, surely Jesus would have a good enough memory to tell JS where his translation was different, no matter how loose of a translation JS was doing.

I suppose you could say it was part of Joseph's punishment... to not be able to have the exact pages back.

Or, why couldn't God have struck the evil men dead or taken the 116 pages from them (as he apparently did with the gold plates from JS for losing the 116 pages)?

Because they needed to be condemned for it. They couldn't have been condemned until they did what they did.

There are many, many simpler ways to deal with the loss of 116 pages from a translated text, especially when you're doing the translation at the behest of an all-powerful being and have his power backing you up.

Uh... one thing... how is God telling Nephi to write the important parts in his book complex... to me, that seems rather simple =P. It seems to show God's power too =).

Best Wishes,

TAO

[KevinG]

If God's purpose is to make people carry out His plans the errors and mistakes make no sense.

If however it is God's purpose to raise His earthly children to be more like Him then the lessons learned about trust, authority, obedience, duty, repentance and atonement make perfect sense.

[cinepro]

Martin did mortgage his farm and provide the financing of the first printing of the Book of Mormon, did he not?

Glenn

Forgot about that part. How did that turn out?

[keith_brian]

I suppose you could say it was part of Joseph's punishment... to not be able to have the exact pages back.

Seemingly God can punish people in a variety of ways -- from h*** fire to making their car break down for not paying tithing. Why he would "punish" someone by not letting them re-translate part of an ancient text is a mystery of Godliness I will never understand.

I'm not even sure if God understands it.

Because they needed to be condemned for it. They couldn't have been condemned until they did what they did.

But, that still doesn't explain why God couldn't have struck the evil men dead (as I suggested) or handled it in a seemingly infinite number of ways besides doing what he did. I mean, the way that Mormons believe that God handled is seems inefficient and weak at best. But, to each their own.

Uh... one thing... how is God telling Nephi to write the important parts in his book complex... to me, that seems rather simple =P. It seems to show God's power too =).

Really?

Huh.

Best Wishes,

TAO

To you as well. When do you leave on your mission, Tao?

[cdowis]

Seemingly God can punish people in a variety of ways -- from h*** fire to making their car break down for not paying tithing. Why he would "punish" someone by not letting them re-translate part of an ancient text is a mystery of Godliness I will never understand.

You have some strange ideas on how God does things. At least, they are very strange to me.

But, that still doesn't explain why God couldn't have struck the evil men dead (as I suggested) or handled it in a seemingly infinite number of ways besides doing what he did. I mean, the way that Mormons believe that God handled is seems inefficient and weak at best. But, to each their own.

Well, as a member of the LDS church, I would claim to understand it within the context my religion. Considering your statement above, I can see why you are puzzled.

Anyway, may I suggest that you should study our religion more closely and you will find the answers to your questions. I have the impression that someone has mislead you, down a very foggy path.

I wish you all the best in your quest to understand the Plan of Salvation and our purpose here on the earth.

Edited July 17, 2011 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Cinepro has given us one scenario on the missing 116 pages, and I agree that it is not very plausible. Recently I have been giving it some thought, and I think I have some idea of what may have happened.

Lucy Harris, against the direction of the prophet, allowed a bunch of people to look at the manuscript. While the details are not important, let's suppose that cousin George took a close look at them, and got an idea.

"Hey, look at this. A prophet, gold plates, translation, etc. I bet that there is a real possibility to make some money here on these pages. In any case my friends and I can have alot of fun." So, with or without the help of Lucy, he steals them./

Now he is talking to his friends about this great thing that he obtained, and one friend mentioned that he knows someone who may be interested enough to actually give him something for it. The friend introduces him to Obediah Dogberry, the publisher of the Reflector.

Obediah immediately realizes that he has a real treasure here -- prophet translating gold plates, and happily purchases the manuscript. He and his associates try to figure out how to publish them, but in a way that will cause a sensation, and bring them alot of subscribers..... it was all about money.

Well, the rest is history. But as we well know, Dogberry does not give up, and is able to get the finished manuscript and publishes it (with changes) in his newspaper. The first plan did not work, so he tries again.

Now,of course, Henry may not exist, and Obediah did this himself when he viewed the pages at the Harris home.

So, no complicated, long-term conspiracy, but a very simple theft based on a sudden opportunity that presented itself to him to make some money.

Nothing fancy.... very simple and straight forward. And we have an individual who later tried something very similar, including stealing a manuscript, and publishing an altered form.

Edited July 17, 2011 by cdowis

[keith_brian]

Seemingly God can punish people in a variety of ways -- from h*** fire to making their car break down for not paying tithing. Why he would "punish" someone by not letting them re-translate part of an ancient text is a mystery of Godliness I will never understand.

You have some strange ideas on how God does things. At least, they are very strange to me.

So, you mean that God DOESN'T punish people for not paying their tithing by making/allowing things to go wrong in their lives, including having their car break? I have heard members bearing testimony of the importance of tithing that would strongly disagree with you there.

But, that still doesn't explain why God couldn't have struck the evil men dead (as I suggested) or handled it in a seemingly infinite number of ways besides doing what he did. I mean, the way that Mormons believe that God handled is seems inefficient and weak at best. But, to each their own.

Well, as a member of the LDS church, I would claim to understand it within the context my religion. Considering your statement above, I can see why you are puzzled.

Anyway, may I suggest that you should study our religion more closely and you will find the answers to your questions. I have the impression that someone has mislead you, down a very foggy path.

I wish you all the best in your quest to understand the Plan of Salvation and our purpose here on the earth.

After over 20 years as a Mormon (now an atheist) that included multiple instances of exposure to the doctrine of the Mormon church, I think that I have at least a basic understanding of what the Mormon church teaches and believes.

I could be mistaken, however.

[KevinG]

So, you mean that God DOESN'T punish people for not paying their tithing by making/allowing things to go wrong in their lives, including having their car break? I have heard members bearing testimony of the importance of tithing that would strongly disagree with you there.

I don't doubt that someone at some time in your experience ascribed the breakdown of their car to failure to pay tithing. However I can't recall a single verse in the scriptures about someones oxen throwing a shoe because they didn't give their tenth to Melchizedek.

I once knew a couple who swore their transmission snapped the moment they both flipped someone off in traffic. While the Holy Ghost may have made that a teachable moment I doubt God was just waiting to smite their drive train the moment they showed a weakness in traffic.

After over 20 years as a Mormon (now an atheist) that included multiple instances of exposure to the doctrine of the Mormon church, I think that I have at least a basic understanding of what the Mormon church teaches and believes.

I could be mistaken, however.

You have also by evidence of your comments been exposed to some urban myths about Mormon Doctrine. Nothing personal but I'd take the word of an active Mormon over an atheist (even raised Mormon) as to what their doctrines and practices mean to them.

[cdowis]

So, you mean that God DOESN'T punish people for not paying their tithing by making/allowing things to go wrong in their lives, including having their car break? I have heard members bearing testimony of the importance of tithing that would strongly disagree with you there.

Some people have an inflated idea of the principle of tithing, which lies outside the teachings of the church.

In order to speak of punishment, you need to understand the scriptural phrase, "Those who are filthy will be filthy still." This is called restoration.

After over 20 years as a Mormon (now an atheist) that included multiple instances of exposure to the doctrine of the Mormon church, I think that I have at least a basic understanding of what the Mormon church teaches and believes.

I think you have lost that understanding.

I could be mistaken, however.

[KevinG]

I mean, the way that Mormons believe that God handled is seems inefficient and weak at best. But, to each their own.

I keep stumbling on this statement. Answer this for me with your knowledge of Mormon doctrines.

Men are that they...

A) may be perfect

B) may have joy

C) may run theperfect church

D) may be torched by hellfire when they fail

[keith_brian]

I don't doubt that someone at some time in your experience ascribed the breakdown of their car to failure to pay tithing. However I can't recall a single verse in the scriptures about someones oxen throwing a shoe because they didn't give their tenth to Melchizedek.

I once knew a couple who swore their transmission snapped the moment they both flipped someone off in traffic. While the Holy Ghost may have made that a teachable moment I doubt God was just waiting to smite their drive train the moment they showed a weakness in traffic.

You have also by evidence of your comments been exposed to some urban myths about Mormon Doctrine. Nothing personal but I'd take the word of an active Mormon over an atheist (even raised Mormon) as to what their doctrines and practices mean to them.

Yes, since I was once a Mormon and no longer believe, I have somehow forgotten all of the teachings, practices, and doctrines of the church that I learned during the previous years of my life.

Funny how that works, huh?

[keith_brian]

I keep stumbling on this statement. Answer this for me with your knowledge of Mormon doctrines.

Men are that they...

A) may be perfect

B) may have joy

C) may run theperfect church

D) may be torched by hellfire when they fail

What does this have to do at all with what my previous statement? I mean, I could answer it, but it's a bit like asking me, "Based on your understanding, what is the nature of gravity in Newton's Law of Physics?" It has an answer, and a definite one that I could explain to you if need be, but what does the answer have to do with the conversation at hand?

[keith_brian]

I think I've come to understand the doctrines of the church too well. That's why I stopped believing.

But, we can agree to disagree.

[Mike Richards]

Cinepro has given us one scenario on the missing 116 pages, and I agree that it is not very plausible. Recently I have been giving it some thought, and I think I have some idea of what may have happened.

Lucy Harris, against the direction of the prophet, allowed a bunch of people to look at the manuscript. While the details are not important, let's suppose that cousin George took a close look at them, and got an idea.

"Hey, look at this. A prophet, gold plates, translation, etc. I bet that there is a real possibility to make some money here on these pages. In any case my friends and I can have alot of fun." So, with or without the help of Lucy, he steals them./

Now he is talking to his friends about this great thing that he obtained, and one friend mentioned that he knows someone who may be interested enough to actually give him something for it. The friend introduces him to Obediah Dogberry, the publisher of the Reflector.

Obediah immediately realizes that he has a real treasure here -- prophet translating gold plates, and happily purchases the manuscript. He and his associates try to figure out how to publish them, but in a way that will cause a sensation, and bring them alot of subscribers..... it was all about money.

Well, the rest is history. But as we well know, Dogberry does not give up, and is able to get the finished manuscript and publishes it (with changes) in his newspaper. The first plan did not work, so he tries again.

Now,of course, Henry may not exist, and Obediah did this himself when he viewed the pages at the Harris home.

So, no complicated, long-term conspiracy, but a very simple theft based on a sudden opportunity that presented itself to him to make some money.

Nothing fancy.... very simple and straight forward. And we have an individual who later tried something very similar, including stealing a manuscript, and publishing an altered form.

This is closer to how I've imagined it--not Satan inspiring long term plans, rather inspiring crimes of convenience, one suggestion at a time. I don't have any problem with Lucy being involved with the plan--since she thought her husband was being tricked-- and when it finally turned out that the plan wouldn't work, she burned the manuscript.