1500S Grammar In The Book Of Mormon. Help Me See Why That's "dramatically Exciting"

[Nevo]

Joseph's stovepipe hat is variously described as old, worn, etc. Whether it had holes the size of a gap in the seems, or holes the size of moth-bites is not the major point here. Postulate a few such holes, or fewer still -- the main consideration is the white color. Just like a white sheet passes more light, when set up as a screen, than a black one, so does a white hat.

 

Perhaps it should be mentioned that none of the numerous accounts left by eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon translation describe the style, color, or amount of wear of the hat that Joseph used in the translation. According to several of these accounts, the reason for placing the seer stone in the hat was to exclude light. Joseph is said to have "buried" his face in the hat. Yes, someone in 1880 supposedly remembered Joseph wearing a "tall white stovepipe hat" during his residence in Harmony, but that striking image is entirely absent from contemporary accounts. The eyewitnesses, friendly and hostile alike, seem to have considered the hat unremarkable. In 1857 Martin Harris related an incident to Joel Tiffany that occurred shortly after Joseph acquired his seer stone (about 1822) where Joseph placed his seer stone in an "old white hat" and located a tie pin that Harris had dropped into a pile of shavings and straw. But whether that same hat was used during the translation of the Book of Mormon seven years later is anyone's guess.

 

Maybe all of the eyewitnesses to the translation were hopelessly credulous, but I find it hard to believe that Joseph could have gotten away with using a moth-eaten stovepipe hat made of light, thin, diaphanous material into which he secreted various notes while dictating for hours at a time. 

Edited March 15, 2015 by Nevo

[Uncle Dale]

 

...non-Mormon scholars have seen Joseph as the same sort of prophet which inhabits the OT

...

 

 

Perhaps so (or, better to say that a few such scholars would say that).

My own profs, back in graduate school days, demoted the Israelite

and Jewish prophets to the status of pious, well-meaning oracles, who

did not repeat plenary predictive divine forecasting word-for-word.

 

Some of the more fundamentalist, literalist Methodist ministers who

had been sent to that seminary for mid-career "refresher courses"

protested and walked out of classes, on occasion.

 

But the teachers who oversaw my own research and writing of thesis

level papers (partly done at Oberlin and partly at Methodist Theological

School) were content to view Smith as having been more of the tradition

of the "Prophet" Jacob Cochran (and that of Rulon Jeffs) than holding

the position of an Isaiah or a Malachi.

 

Among RLDS (and a few CoC members) I have witnessed the entire

spectrum of viewpoints. At one end of that continuum were those who 

accepted each and every word of "History of the Church" as reflecting

the Divine will and authority -- and at the other end were those folks

who said things like "I would have been baptized two decades ago, if

I didn't have to believe the Book of Mormon. Now that W. Wallace is

in office, I can finally follow my wife, into the font, thirty years later").

 

I suppose my own placement along that spectrum falls off the base

line, several degrees beyond the "now that W. Wallace is in office"

profession.

 

UD

Edited March 15, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Uncle Dale]

 

...dictating for hours at a time. 

 

I was referring to something more along the lines of ten-minute

demonstrations, now and then. With Smith's professed remarkable

memory doing the lion's share of the work, 99% of the time.

 

Why a demonstration, the results of which were not intended to

provide the model for the other 99% of the job? If I knew the

story behind the Badger's Tavern episode, perhaps that matter

could be discussed more fully.

 

UD

[mfbukowski]

Actually, I think Joseph was brilliant in many aspects, but that doesn't mean he wasn't prone to make mistakes expected of an uneducated farm boy living 1830 upstate New York (refer to exhibit 1: BoM Anachronisms).  While I believe this to be a glaring and unexplainable red flag, I realize I'm probably in the minority here.  I've never read of anybody losing their testimony over this issue and I'm sure there are many people sitting in the pews today that are much more intelligent than I who have never given it a second thought.  Doesn't mean either of us are stupid, just that we may think differently.

 

 

Which is why Joseph changed half of the verses.  If I'm correct about my theory, then at the time Joseph would not have been very familiar with legitimate translations and it would not be unreasonable for him to believe this to be sufficient.  This shouldn't come to any surprise considering his circumstances and the fact that vast majority of BoM readers today (who are much more educated than he was) likely never give it a second thought.

 

 

Absolutely not, but that has no bearing on what Joseph might have done.

 

 

I've given you my theories, now your turn.  Why are there 202 verbatim KJV Isaiah verses in the BoM?  What's you explanation as to how Joseph's translation matched verbatim those of the committee that translated the KJV.  Remember, the BoM verses were translated from ancient Hebrew to Reformed Egyptian to an ancient American language written by Mormon to Jacobean English.  This would have certainly caused a lot of variance in words, even if the "correct" message or meaning remained.  Statistically, I think one could expect a few of the verses to match exactly, but certainly not half of them.  How do you explain the verses that were changed by just a few words, but offer no change in meaning to the verse?

Why did Joseph completely re-write sections of the bible and call them a "translation" while there was NO text at all??

 

And suppose YOU were COMPOSING the message God wanted you to give, tell the stories God wanted you to tell.

 

Suppose, opening the bible, you found, VERBATIM exactly what God was telling you to say?   Would you worry about your limited English skills and spelling problems, your lack of vocabulary and the fact that you were uneducated, or would you simply copy the message God had already also given to someone else?

 

I vote for plan B.   Easy.   Simple.

 

Or suppose the English words in the hat- were exactly what was written already?   Is it your job to change them?

Edited March 15, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Tying the Bible to the BoM adds legitimacy.  The Bible was the only scripture most of these people knew, why would he not created that connection?

I didn't ask the question.  I don't care if he quoted the bible verbatim- do you or don't you?  People say the connection hurts the authenticity of the BOM.   Are you now denying that question?

[Gervin]

I don't care if he quoted the bible verbatim-

would you care if he had help writing it?

[Uncle Dale]

...

Actually, Quinn (who believes the Book of Mormon historically authentic) and Shipps (who is Methodist) took a more nuanced approach:  Religion and magic are indistinguishable...

He seems to keep changing his profession of Smith's

activities and of the ancient pre-history of the Americas.

At least he has since the time I attended his Sunstone

discourses, and people teased him by calling the guy

Dr. Clandestine.

But, if I were to ask him today, whether or not Smith

obtained an authentic Nephite breastplate, with

attached spectacles -- he would say "yes" ???

And, if I asked him if Joseph could truly see under

the ground, using that equipment, he'd say "yes" ???

Are you certain of that?

UD

[mfbukowski]

would you care if he had help writing it?

I am essentially a philosopher. Do I care if Aristotle had help writing? Plato? Anyone else?

The answer is no.

The proof is in the pudding- there is no other proof possible. The kingdom of heaven is within you to be established within you. The gospel is about becoming something greater than we are. I for one need all the help I can get.

[Gervin]

I am essentially a philosopher. Do I care if Aristotle had help writing? Plato? Anyone else?

The answer is no.

The proof is in the pudding- there is no other proof possible. The kingdom of heaven is within you to be established within you. The gospel is about becoming something greater than we are. I for one need all the help I can get.

Aristotle or Plato cribbing their writings from others might not be so egregious considering they didn't claim to be prophets of God.

 

Given your "no," lying about the translation of the Book of Mormon would be considered 'for the greater good?'

[omni]

 

If I was instructed to write a book.....and I was to teach things that were already taught by a different author, it would make sense for me to simply quote those passages the best I could and the provide attribution.  

 

 

This could have been effectively accomplished had Joseph simply provided the direct translation from the plates.  He would still be quoting Isaiah and he would still be attributing the words to him, but it would have been a purer and more correct translation. 

 

What are your ideas on how he accomplished this - mechanically speaking?  I can think of a couple of options, but neither of them make much sense to me.  Perhaps when Joseph approached the Isaiah verses in the plates would he then pull out his Bible (contrary to witness statements) and verify the meaning was the same?  If it was, then he would use the KJV verse and if it didn't he would make the necessary changes.  That doesn't sound very practical to me, let alone how does he know when he's encountered a verse from Isaiah?

 

Another option would be that Joseph was simply reading the words off the seer stone and God had made the decision to use the KJV verses.  I don't buy the idea that the KJV was chosen because readers would be more familiar with it.  I imagine that had the chapter headings not recommended the reader compare to Isaiah that 90% of us wouldn't have even known where those particular verses originated.  

 

Additionally, if God is providing the exact wording to Joseph, why is he so inconsistent in his method?  Take a look at the verses below.  The first set is from the BoM and the second from Isaiah.  Verse 1 varies significantly which would be expected since the meaning of the verse has changed.  Verses 2 and 3 are identical which we are told would happen when there was no significant change in meaning.  However, look at verses 4 and 5 where I've bolded the differences.  There is no discernible change in meaning, yet there is a clear difference in wording.

 

 

1 Nephi 21: 1-5

 

1 And again: Hearken, O ye house of Israel, all ye that are broken off and are driven out because of the wickedness of the pastors of my people; yea, all ye that are broken off, that are scattered abroad, who are of my people, O house of Israel. Listen, O isles, unto me, and hearken ye people from far; the Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.

 2 And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me;

 3 And said unto me: Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.

 4 Then I said, I have labored in vain, I have spent my strength for naught and in vain; surely my judgment is with the Lord, and my work with my God.

 5 And now, saith the Lord—that formed me from the womb that I should be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him—though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.

 2 And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me;

 3 And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.

 4 Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgmentis with the Lord, and my work with my God.

 5 ¶And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength.

 

 

 

[omni]

I didn't ask the question.  I don't care if he quoted the bible verbatim- do you or don't you?  People say the connection hurts the authenticity of the BOM.   Are you now denying that question?

 

I misread your question, I thought you were asking why he included verses from the Bible.

[mfbukowski]

Aristotle or Plato cribbing their writings from others might not be so egregious considering they didn't claim to be prophets of God.

 

Given your "no," lying about the translation of the Book of Mormon would be considered 'for the greater good?'

You seem to take everything to extremes and see only black and white. Heaven or hell, no nuance or grey areas, right? You are saved or condemned.  Nothing to think about.

I never said anything about cribbing or lies.

 

That is the way you think, not the way I think.

 

We are influenced by everyone and even you influence me. I tend to respond as I am addressed. I really need to work on that.

Edited March 15, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Joseph DID translate the BOM.

 

It's just a little difficult to prove without the plates.  No lies there at all.  He received the text in English, the text was written in a language we don't even have.

 

We accept this on our testimony, just as creedals accept their creed- without evidence

 

Is "consubstantial" a lie because substance doesn't exist?  Show me some!  Do you really want to go there?

 

I don't.

 

And Aquinas- which philosophy creedals still accept, even protestants, "cribbed" from Aristotle, right?   Do we want to throw around those kind of words?

 

I don't

Edited March 15, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I misread your question, I thought you were asking why he included verses from the Bible.

ok

[mfbukowski]

The other question is the Deutero- Isaiah issue in the BOM

 

Same thing- Joseph got it by revelation and used what was in front of him as a "translation".  Maybe Nephi got it that way too- unknowable and therefore nothing to argue about.

[mfbukowski]

 

This could have been effectively accomplished had Joseph simply provided the direct translation from the plates.  He would still be quoting Isaiah and he would still be attributing the words to him, but it would have been a purer and more correct translation. 

 

What are your ideas on how he accomplished this - mechanically speaking?  I can think of a couple of options, but neither of them make much sense to me.  Perhaps when Joseph approached the Isaiah verses in the plates would he then pull out his Bible (contrary to witness statements) and verify the meaning was the same?  If it was, then he would use the KJV verse and if it didn't he would make the necessary changes.  That doesn't sound very practical to me, let alone how does he know when he's encountered a verse from Isaiah?

 

Another option would be that Joseph was simply reading the words off the seer stone and God had made the decision to use the KJV verses.  I don't buy the idea that the KJV was chosen because readers would be more familiar with it.  I imagine that had the chapter headings not recommended the reader compare to Isaiah that 90% of us wouldn't have even known where those particular verses originated.  

 

Additionally, if God is providing the exact wording to Joseph, why is he so inconsistent in his method?  Take a look at the verses below.  The first set is from the BoM and the second from Isaiah.  Verse 1 varies significantly which would be expected since the meaning of the verse has changed.  Verses 2 and 3 are identical which we are told would happen when there was no significant change in meaning.  However, look at verses 4 and 5 where I've bolded the differences.  There is no discernible change in meaning, yet there is a clear difference in wording.

 

If God can make words appear in a seer stone in a hat, he can make the words of Nephi appear, the words of Isaiah appear or the words of Deutero-Isaiah appear, who or whatever that was.

 

If we are talking about credibility in a mechanical way here, the EASIEST question to answer is how Joseph copied the words.

 

The words appearing in the stone in the hat in the first place is the BIG problem.

 

Either it was all supernatural as we see it today or it was not.  Either we accept it on testimony or we don't.   Taking the mechanical route gets us nowhere.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Or suppose the English words in the hat- were exactly what was written already?

Is it your job to change them?

As has been pointed out, Smith changed about half of the KJV quoted

passages' italicized words. Of those changes, about half again show

some correspondence to early Mormon theology.

So, roughly a quarter of the KJV italicized words were changed,

in such a way as to support the "restored Gospel" viewpoint, or

to correspond with innovations showing up in Smith's revelations.

Who authorized those doctrinal changes?

Eloheim?

Jehovah?

Nephites?

Smith himself?

Strange thing is, when Smith worked up his own subsequent

version of the KJV, he reverted back to the original Jacobin

scholars' choices, in some cases. Why?

So, who changed their mind about that?

Eloheim?

Jehovah?

Smith?

I don't think we can blame the Nephites for those textual

turn-arounds.

UD

Were I a Mormon, I'd just chalk it up to the JST MS being left "unfinished"

Edited March 15, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Gervin]

You seem to take everything to extremes and see only black and white. Heaven or hell, no nuance or grey areas, right? You are saved or condemned.  Nothing to think about.

I never said anything about cribbing or lies.

 

That is the way you think, not the way I think.

 

We are influenced by everyone and even you influence me. I tend to respond as I am addressed. I really need to work on that.

 

My question was intended to understand the nuances of your position that you don't care if he coped the Bible directly.  Yet this type of assistance was denied, correct?  So, naturally, I wanted to know where you stood on the possibility that the process story was fabricated.  That's all.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Gervin

[mfbukowski]

As has been pointed out, Smith changed about half of the KJV quoted

passages' italicized words. Of those changes, about half again show

some correspondence to early Mormon theology.

So, roughly a quarter of the KJV italicized words were changed,

in such a way as to support the "restored Gospel" viewpoint, or

to correspond with innovations showing up in Smith's revelations.

Who authorized those doctrinal changes?

Eloheim?

Jehovah?

Nephites?

Smith himself?

Strange thing is, when Smith worked up his own subsequent

version of the KJV, he reverted back to the original Jacobin

scholars' choices, in some cases. Why?

So, who changed their mind about that?

Eloheim?

Jehovah?

Smith?

I don't think we can blame the Nephites for those textual

turn-arounds.

UD

Were I a Mormon, I'd just chalk it up to the JST MS being left "unfinished"

That works.

 

Of course all this presumes there is an "unchanging bible/BOM et al" out there floating in the ether, a theory I do not accept.

 

People ask God questions.  People write down what they think God said was their personal message from God.   Some get published some don't.  Some get canonized some don't, after edits and scribal additions and marginal notes and historical tweaks.

 

In God I trust.  All others pay cash.

 

And even that is just funny paper people accept to get a job done, and then pass it on to others who accept it.  It's all based on faith anyway.  It's all funny paper people accept to get a job done, some of those jobs include spiritual enlightenment.

 

Some funny paper works better than others.  We're all just folks trying to get through life and make sense of it.

Edited March 15, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

My question was intended to understand the nuances of your position that you don't care if he coped the Bible directly.  Yet this type of assistance was denied, correct?  So, naturally, I wanted to know where you stood on the possibility that the process story was fabricated.  That's all.

I will discuss it if this is a legitimate inquiry.

 

I have no clue what you are talking about.   Too vague.  Correct, I don't care if he copied the bible directly because the bible is just some guys writing what they think is right and we accept it on faith or don't accept it on faith.   It's all about testimony- what God tells us individually what is right.

 

I don't know what kind of "assistance" was "denied".   No clue what you mean by that.

 

Don't know what you mean that the story was "fabricated".   Was the story of the good shepherd "fabricated"?   Was the story of the 10 virgins "fabricated"?   What does that mean?

 

A story is a story.  None of them can be proven historically.   In that context I don't know what "fabricated" even means.  It becomes irrelevant.

 

If the story improves your life, it is "good".   If it doesn't it is not "good".   It's all that simple.  There is nothing to go on but testimony anyway- and that is Alma 32.  If it works and is sweet to you , it is true.

 

But of course someone will say that means that anything goes- that's obviously not what I am saying.  Living that will leads to a miserable life- 14 kids out of wedlock or ending up in prison is not a "good" or "Sweet' life.

 

I am talking about the plan of Happiness here- Following God's rules leads to happiness.   THAT is what makes it all "good".

Edited March 15, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Uncle Dale]

That works....

 

.

Or, maybe Satan really DID get his sulpherous hands upon

Cumorah's plates, and surreptitiously altered the unchanging 

Gospel. If the Great and Abominable Church could write

our "choice seer" completely out of Genesis, the Dead Sea

scrolls and St. Paul's library scroll of the LXX, then probably

anything is possible.

 

Ergo -- The Nephites wrote it down right -- but the Devil

burrowed into Cumorah and changed the engravings on the

plates -- devilishly altering the non-existant Hebrew whereupon 

James the First's scholars based their 17th century guesses.

 

Thus -- Smith was misled into substituting Satan's italicized

words, for those of the King's righteous translators.

 

But, with Elder Rigdon at his side, in Kirtland, the Choice Seer

unraveled the demonic plot, substituting the correctly italicized

Jacobin additions (for the Hebrew words that never existed at all).

Thus, the JST corrects the anciently corrupted BoM.

 

 

Simple. Neat. Compelling.

 

UD

(I'll have to run it by Warren Jeffs, to see if he can detect any leaps in latter day logic)

Edited March 16, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[mfbukowski]

.

Or, maybe Satan really DID get his sulpherous hands upon

Cumorah's plates, and surreptitiously altered the unchanging 

Gospel. If the Great and Abominable Church could write

our "choice seer" completely out of Genesis, the Dead Sea

scrolls and St. Paul's library scroll of the LXX, then probably

anything is possible.

 

Ergo -- The Nephites wrote it down right -- but the Devil

burrowed into Cumorah and changed the engravings on the

plates -- devilishly altering the non-existant Hebrew whereupon 

James the First's scholars based their 17th century guesses.

 

Thus -- Smith was misled into substituting Satan's italicized

words, for those of the King's righteous translators.

 

But, with Elder Rigdon at his side, in Kirtland, the Choice Seer

unraveled the demonic plot, substituting the correctly italicized

Jacobin additions (for the Hebrew words that never existed at all).

Thus, the JST corrects the anciently corrupted BoM.

 

Simple. Neat. Compelling.

 

UD

(I'll have to run it by Warren Jeffs, to see if he can detect any leaps in latter day logic)

And this story is relevant to anything because.......?

[Uncle Dale]

And this story is relevant to anything because.......?

 

As a counterweight to "Of course all this presumes there is an

unchanging bible/BOM."

 

There must needs be opposition in all things, you see --

like the balancing of quadratic equations on the blackboard

back in your jr. high Intro to Algebra  class.

 

UD

(This is, of course, if the Devil himself did not insert the "opposition" passage

onto the golden plates -- just to prove the BoM was not unchanging)

[Robert F. Smith]

...................................................................

I can see no way that Mormonism could NOT be true, without Oliver

knowing its secret origins.

 

Either he met Christ, face-to-face, in the Kirtland Temple, standing

alongside Joseph Smith, Jr., or else he did not. If that Christophany

was "true" then I suppose Oliver's silence regarding Mormon origins

betokens nothing. What he wrote while still an active member was

his testimony -- period.

 

If Oliver lied about the Kirtland Temple vision, then we can assume

that he lied about Peter, James & John, and that he lied about the

appearance of John the Baptist as well.

...................................................................

A lot depends upon Oliver's having told a true account of things in

his Messenger and Advocate letters to Phelps.

..................................................................  

A lot depends upon whether Peter, James & John lied, and whether John the Baptist lied at crucial points.

Your approach leads us into a morass from which there is no extricating one's self.

Your reasoning leads us into an infinite regress -- period.

So many "ifs" and so little time to resolve them.

But flights of fancy are so much fun . . .

[Robert F. Smith]

........................................................

James the First's scholars based their 17th century guesses.

 

Thus -- Smith was misled into substituting Satan's italicized

words, for those of the King's righteous translators.

..............................................................  

Trouble is that the KJV is not Jacobin guesswork, but comes from Tyndale.  Virtually all of it.