Quote From Lds.Org About Bom Translation

[why me]

Here is part of my original post

Joseph did not read out loud from the plates, which is what the church would like people to think, in my opinion.

By the church's own account all the accounts are contradictory and sketchy, see here

And yet here is oliver:

Oliver, reflecting on this miraculous event, testified, “Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated … the history, or record, called ‘The book of Mormon’” (Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate, Oct. 1834, pp. 14–16).

So, you disagree with oliver? I think that you will need to reflect alittle more about this. Oliver just has contradicted your understanding.

[cinepro]

I think that Z. may be correct. The oracles may be a guide in the present day but the standard works are the foundation of the lds church. Take away the foundation and the lds church falls apart.

I'm pretty sure the oracles are more important than the standard works in the LDS scheme of things.

What the Lord said to the Jews and Nephites 2,000 years ago or what He said to the Latter-day Saints 50 or 60 years ago has no force whatever at this time unless it agrees with present-day revelation, with the Lord’s most recent instructions to His people through His chosen or appointed servants or servant; and they who ignore this fact are liable to get into trouble. It is the latest word from God that must be heeded, in preference to any former revelation, however true.

And CFR that the standard works are the "foundation of the LDS Church". According to Jesus, revelation is the rock upon which his Church would be founded, and I don't recall this having changed anytime in the last 2000 years.

Edited December 5, 2011 by cinepro

[MIkew]

And this conforms to the Richards account. Nothing wrong in that. How should the church want people to think? Who is right and who is wrong? I believe that the richards account was unknown to you in your orginal OP. Since I showed you this account, you have changed your tune alittle. I also don't think that there is anything wrong with the Harris account or with emma's and david's account. Unfortunately we have nothing from Joseph abou it. But the common denominator is: it was done by the power of god. Such is confirmed by all witnesses to how it was done.

Yes it was unknown in my original post. I think if the church left it at being done by the power of god that they would be ok, but they chose to present the urim and thummim over stone in the hat and I think they have been dishonest in that due to what goes with the stone in the hat.

Edited December 5, 2011 by MIkew

[MIkew]

I think that Z. may be correct. The oracles may be a guide in the present day but the standard works are the foundation of the lds church. Take away the foundation and the lds church falls apart.

which is why how the BOM came to be is important.

[why me]

And here is another account:

In Harmony, the couple moved into a two-room house owned by Jesse, another of Emma’s brothers, about 150 yards from Isaac Hale’s house. The Prophet was ready to begin the translation. On at least six different occasions, Joseph Smith gave brief descriptions of how he translated the Book of Mormon. All six accounts agree that he translated them by the gift and power of God, through the Urim and Thummim. ²³

Such a statement does not mean, though, that Joseph Smith did nothing but read to his scribe the English appearing in that instrument. He first began to translate by copying a considerable number of characters off the plates. He then studied them out in his mind and finally, by using the Urim and Thummim and his faith, translated them.

The scriptures indicate that translation involved sight, power, transcription of the characters, the Urim and Thummim or a seerstone, study, and prayer. David Whitmer and Martin Harris testify that if the Prophet made the proper preparation, sentences would appear, which he dictated to his scribe. If the scribe wrote them correctly, the words would disappear, and others would take their place. ²⁴

^{http://lds.org/ensign/1988/01/a-new-prophet-and-a-new-scripture-the-coming-forth-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng&query=book+mormon+translation+process}

I see no dishonesty here.

[why me]

Yes it was unknown in my original post. I think if the church left it at being done by the power of god that they would be ok, but they chose to present the urim and thummim over stone in the hat and I think they have been dishonest in that due to what goes with the stone in the hat.

See the latest post about the account. I see no dishonesty. But what I do see are various accounts about how the translation was done. I think that the ensign article that I just linked to covers most of them in a general way in the sense about what unites all versions.

[Jaybear]

Wrong. Joseph Smith never explained the precise details of how the translation was done

Funny how apologists love to make such grand unsupportable claims when they would, rightly, skewer critics if they made such a claim.

Unless you are privy to every conversation in which someone asked Smith how it worked, you are not in the position to say that "Joseph Smith never explained the precise details of how the translation was done."

Moreover, as there were several first hand observers to the "translation" process that provided considerable detail about what smith supposedly saw in his hat, and those reports are wholly consistent, the most reasonable inference is that they were parroting what Smith told them he saw while looking in his hat.

[why me]

And regardless of how the book of mormon was translated, we have the testimony of the whitmers:

http://lds.org/ensign/1989/02/true-to-the-book-of-mormon-the-whitmers?lang=eng&query=book+mormon+translation+process

Notice how the mother of the whitmers was shown the plates. I think that this family is a wonderful testimony to the book of mormon and critics would be hard put to contradict the whitmers.

[MIkew]

And here is another account:

In Harmony, the couple moved into a two-room house owned by Jesse, another of Emma’s brothers, about 150 yards from Isaac Hale’s house. The Prophet was ready to begin the translation. On at least six different occasions, Joseph Smith gave brief descriptions of how he translated the Book of Mormon. All six accounts agree that he translated them by the gift and power of God, through the Urim and Thummim. ²³

Such a statement does not mean, though, that Joseph Smith did nothing but read to his scribe the English appearing in that instrument. He first began to translate by copying a considerable number of characters off the plates. He then studied them out in his mind and finally, by using the Urim and Thummim and his faith, translated them.

The scriptures indicate that translation involved sight, power, transcription of the characters, the Urim and Thummim or a seerstone, study, and prayer. David Whitmer and Martin Harris testify that if the Prophet made the proper preparation, sentences would appear, which he dictated to his scribe. If the scribe wrote them correctly, the words would disappear, and others would take their place. ²⁴

^{http://lds.org/ensig...slation+process}

I see no dishonesty here.

What do you think about the manual that refered to what was known about the translation process as sketchy, contradictory and recorded at much later dates? Also think about how Joseph Smith said the details were not meant to come out. Compare that to how the church tries to show it was done.

[why me]

Funny how apologists love to make such grand unsupportable claims when they would, rightly, skewer critics if they made such a claim.

Unless you are privy to every conversation in which someone asked Smith how it worked, you are not in the position to say that "Joseph Smith never explained the precise details of how the translation was done."

Moreover, as there were several first hand observers to the "translation" process that provided considerable detail about what smith supposedly saw in his hat, and those reports are wholly consistent, the most reasonable inference is that they were parroting what Smith told them he saw while looking in his hat.

No one is denying the hat. But what we are saying is that the lds church is not being dishonest. If anyone searches lds.org for how the book of mormon was translated, many articles will appear, including the hat trick. But so do other accounts. And it is true, that Joseph Smith never gave a precise description of the translation process. But what is a common thread is that it was done by the power of god and all the witnessed to the translation agreed with this statement.

[why me]

What do you think about the manual that refered to what was known about the translation process as sketchy, contradictory and recorded at much later dates? Also think about how Joseph Smith said the details were not meant to come out. Compare that to how the church tries to show it was done.

Here is what I think about it: at the time it was not important how it was done but by what means. And the means that it was done was by the power of god. For the people involved in the process this is what matters and why they believed that process was from god. The church has no idea just how it was done. They can only go by what was said at that time. And in terms of artist interpretations, the richards account holds sway. But in terms of articles, all the instruments are mentioned. What is at times lacking is the means in which these tools were used. But they are mentioned. It doesn't take much of an imagination to guess that the process was out of the ordinary.

[why me]

What do you think about the manual that refered to what was known about the translation process as sketchy, contradictory and recorded at much later dates? Also think about how Joseph Smith said the details were not meant to come out. Compare that to how the church tries to show it was done.

Have you read about the whitmer family? Regardless of the process, not one could deny the influence of god in the process. And they went to their deathbeds with their testimony. Now that is powerful because all strayed from the church or went inactive. So, regardless of what david saw of the process, he believed it. And he saw the plates. At the end of day, that is what is important. Not the hat. Likewise for the rest of the whitmers. What do you think of the article and the story of the whitmers. Interesting about the mother of the whitmers seeing the plates.

http://lds.org/ensig...slation+process

Edited December 5, 2011 by why me

[why me]

Milkew, did you see my post number 276? What do think about what oliver said?

[Jaybear]

And it is true, that Joseph Smith never gave a precise description of the translation process.

Are you privy to every conversation at which someone asked Smith how the translation worked?

Did the person who offered this description make it up:

Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English.

Or is that not a "precise" description, as he doesn't tell us the size of the font?

[MIkew]

And yet here is oliver:

Oliver, reflecting on this miraculous event, testified, “Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated … the history, or record, called ‘The book of Mormon’” (Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate, Oct. 1834, pp. 14–16).

So, you disagree with oliver? I think that you will need to reflect alittle more about this. Oliver just has contradicted your understanding.

That doesn't say he read from the plates, it says Oliver wrote from his mouth which is consistent with Urim and Thummim, stone in hat, reading, or recieving direct inspiration.

I have been learning a bunch as I have gone through this but I don't think this says anything different, is there more to it? Or are you refering to the sketchy comment?

[why me]

That doesn't say he read from the plates, it says Oliver wrote from his mouth which is consistent with Urim and Thummim, stone in hat, reading, or recieving direct inspiration.

I have been learning a bunch as I have gone through this but I don't think this says anything different, is there more to it? Or are you refering to the sketchy comment?

I don't know what is oliver referring to here. Is he refering to what Richards said or to what whitmer or emma said. I have no idea. But what it does say is that Joseph Smith read from his mouth and oliver wrote it down. And that was the point.

Oliver, reflecting on this miraculous event, testified, “Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated … the history, or record, called ‘The book of Mormon’” (Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate, Oct. 1834, pp. 14–16).

[MIkew]

I don't know what is oliver referring to here. Is he refering to what Richards said or to what whitmer or emma said. I have no idea. But what it does say is that Joseph Smith read from his mouth and oliver wrote it down. And that was the point.

Oliver, reflecting on this miraculous event, testified, “Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated … the history, or record, called ‘The book of Mormon’” (Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate, Oct. 1834, pp. 14–16).

Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying with this. He was writing what Joseph was saying with his mouth. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

[why me]

I don't know what is oliver referring to here. Is he refering to what Richards said or to what whitmer or emma said. I have no idea. But what it does say is that Joseph Smith read from his mouth and oliver wrote it down. And that was the point.

Oliver, reflecting on this miraculous event, testified, “Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated … the history, or record, called ‘The book of Mormon’” (Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate, Oct. 1834, pp. 14–16).

Here is more about he said:

* Oliver Cowdery describes these events thus: “These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, ‘Interpreters,’ the history or record called ‘The Book of Mormon.’

But no mention of the hat. What to do? This was in the JShistory.

Edited December 5, 2011 by why me

[MIkew]

Here is more about he said:

* Oliver Cowdery describes these events thus: “These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, ‘Interpreters,’ the history or record called ‘The Book of Mormon.’

But no mention of the hat. What to do? This was in the JShistory.

I am still stuck on the mouth thing you were pointing out, I still don't get it. I think we can all agree that Joseph spoke and the scribe wrote what Joseph spoke.

[cdowis]

Funny how apologists love to make such grand unsupportable claims when they would, rightly, skewer critics if they made such a claim.

Unless you are privy to every conversation in which someone asked Smith how it worked, you are not in the position to say that "Joseph Smith never explained the precise details of how the translation was done."

Moreover, as there were several first hand observers to the "translation" process that provided considerable detail about what smith supposedly saw in his hat, and those reports are wholly consistent, the most reasonable inference is that they were parroting what Smith told them he saw while looking in his hat.

I agree that they were quoting someone, but was it JS or just gossip/rumor. They heard someone make some speculation, and then everybody accepted it as fact. There is absolutely no indication that this came from JS himself.

While we are on the subject, why don't you tell us what you think was happening in that hat.

• What role did the witnesses play in the production of the BOM -- were they co-conspirators, or were they dupes.
  Did JS indeed see a translation in a vision, was he reading from a manuscript, was he making it up as he dictated it?

Help us out here, Jaybear.

Edited December 6, 2011 by cdowis

[cdowis]

The reason is that they are dishonestly portaying things to put Joseph in a better light. Read the gospel principles manual that we have been using for the last 2 years. By purposely leaving things out, the church is being dishonest.

I have the impression that your opinion on that point will not change. I feel that the church's responsibility is to teach the doctrine of Christ, to tell us how to go into the presence of the Father, Historical facts is our personal responsibility to reseach the details of church history, to go beyond the basic description presented by the church.

You are going to experience many disappointments in life if you blame others for your personal shortcomings -- "the church is deceptive for not telling me all the details." Now you can take my posts that I am "angry" with you. Or you just might learn something, and welcome my advise and counsel.

[KevinG]

Where and how the BOM came to be are probably the two most important questions in Mormonism.

'The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it' - Joseph Smith Jr.

Articles of Faith: 4 We believe that the first principles and ^aordinances of the Gospel are: first, ^bFaith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, ^cRepentance; third, ^dBaptism by ^eimmersion for the ^fremission of sins; fourth, Laying on of ^ghands for the ^hgift of the Holy Ghost.

[Kenngo1969]

In my opinion, the bottom line is that if the Adversary can divert your attention from the miracle that the Book of Mormon exists at all, and can, instead, get you to lose yourself in the minutiae of how it came about (when all of us, whether to a greater or lesser extent, "see through a glass, darkly" on that score), then he's won.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/safety-for-the-soul?lang=eng

[Stargazer]

This is not exactly true. He took issue with the painting because he believed that the church was misrepresenting the translation process because of its lack of a hat. However, if we go by richards, no hat was required. Thus, the painting showing them together translating the book of mormon. And of course, the article where the picture was present did mention the urim and thummin etc. So, where is the lie or deception?

Don't ask me; I don't see it, either. I was just reporting how I understood Mikew.

[MIkew]

I have the impression that your opinion on that point will not change. I feel that the church's responsibility is to teach the doctrine of Christ, to tell us how to go into the presence of the Father, Historical facts is our personal responsibility to reseach the details of church history, to go beyond the basic description presented by the church.

You are going to experience many disappointments in life if you blame others for your personal shortcomings -- "the church is deceptive for not telling me all the details." Now you can take my posts that I am "angry" with you. Or you just might learn something, and welcome my advise and counsel.

Did I say you were angry in a previous post? If you weren't I apologize.

I can't think of any dissapointments in my life due to others. When someone, that someone is the church in this case, you trust breaks that trust it hurts.

Speaking to what you said you feel the church's responsibility is, well I think we all know it goes a lot further than that.