Does The Seer Stone Cause Problems For Other Bom Apologetics?

[Teancum]

I have a question.

 

The BoM clearly has things that can be considered anachronistic.  Things like adieu and horses and steel, etc are all problematic.

 

Prior apologetics have argues the Joseph in the translation process would put whatever words that were in reformed Egyptian into words in English he understood. That sort of made sense if he had the plates there and was looking into come device that put the words in English.

 

But if he did not have the plates. was looking at a stone in a hat that the words magically appeared on, well then I think this argument loses its value, at least it seems so. Thus the anachronistic phrases thus become more problematic.

 

Thoughts?

[Zakuska]

Adieu = Problematic?!

 

  :rofl:         

[williamsmith]

I have a question.

 

The BoM clearly has things that can be considered anachronistic.  Things like adieu and horses and steel, etc are all problematic.

 

Prior apologetics have argues the Joseph in the translation process would put whatever words that were in reformed Egyptian into words in English he understood. That sort of made sense if he had the plates there and was looking into come device that put the words in English.

 

But if he did not have the plates. was looking at a stone in a hat that the words magically appeared on, well then I think this argument loses its value, at least it seems so. Thus the anachronistic phrases thus become more problematic.

 

Thoughts?

 

1. Adieu is English of his day.

 

2. Horses clearly did exist in Nephi's days.

- Horse populations just a few years later in the America's cannot be explained by the Dozen/whatever horses that survived when the Spanish came over.

- Horse traditions among the Indians that may predate the arrival of the Spaniards.

- pre-Columbian petroglyphs that appear to depict horses.

- Noticeable differences between the sizes of the typical Spanish horse and the much smaller American Indian ponies. (Spanish Horses breeding would have created Spanish Horses)

- The fact that the size of the two horses breeding would in fact create the size of the common American horse.

 

3. Educate yourself.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Metals/Steel

There is no reference to Nephite "steel" after 400 B.C.

Further Jarom mentions a number of “weapons of war,” this list notably leaves off swords. Rather, it includes “arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin.” If iron/steel swords were extensively used by Book of Mormon armies, why are they notably absent from this list of weapons, the only weapon-list that specifically mentions steel?

 

4. The Translation of the BOM came by "Revelation".  Period.

The "means" of that revelation came by many methods.

There are some 6 different "means" according to all known accounts that the translation of the BOM occurred by, including having nothing at all, just pure revelation to the mind, no plates, no type of stone.

- Stone in Hat

- Urim Thummim (which are stones formed as a type of spectacles)

- Urim Thummim in hat

- Plates

- No Plates

- No Plates, Stones, or Hats

 

Bottom line is that the Translation occurred by Revelation.  The means that revelation occurred is irrelevant.

Physical plates or otherwise are not required to receive revelation.  Objects clearly assist a Prophet in receiving revelation sometimes hence the Seer Stone, Urim & Thummim and many other objects of scriptural history, but they are only assistants, not the process for which words from God are received.  Even then, they still must go through the human filter of language and ones understanding.  Anything can still have error when it concerns humans.  That's one reason why Joseph said the BOM was the "most correct book" of scripture, not the "perfect" Word of God.

 

Conclusion:  Recommend you correct some of your false assumptions.

Edited August 11, 2015 by williamsmith

[Boanerges]

I don't think it is problematic because I don't think we really know exactly how it worked. Did Joseph see actual words on the stone itself? Were the images of the words physical or more spiritual? Did he actually see words at all (physically or spiritually), or were they more like images in his mind? There are lots of possibilities.

 

In Bushman's Trib Talk from yesterday he pointed out that Joseph talked very little about the translation process and mostly only asserted it was by the gift and power of God. I agree with WilliamSmith that the means are really irrelevant. The "gift and power of God" is quite enough for me. For what it's worth I'm not sure the plates themselves were at all necessary for the translation, but may have been necessary for some other purpose.

[williamsmith]

I don't think it is problematic because I don't think we really know exactly how it worked. Did Joseph see actual words on the stone itself? Were the images of the words physical or more spiritual? Did he actually see words at all (physically or spiritually), or were they more like images in his mind? There are lots of possibilities.

 

In Bushman's Trib Talk from yesterday he pointed out that Joseph talked very little about the translation process and mostly only asserted it was by the gift and power of God. I agree with WilliamSmith that the means are really irrelevant. The "gift and power of God" is quite enough for me. For what it's worth I'm not sure the plates themselves were at all necessary for the translation, but may have been necessary for some other purpose.

 

Yes, the Witnesses both the 8 and the 3 make a very powerful testimony.

The 3 further solidifying the testimony because it was an Angel of God who showed the plates to them.

More so even, some half of all the Witnesses actually left the church (including all 3 witnesses), most came back, but some didn't, but not a single one ever denied what they had known and seen.

 

To me, that is unprecidented.  People who left the church never had a problem saying what they felt was wrong with it.

If what they had experienced had been a lie, they would have said so.....

Yet, 11 key people, and especially the 3 never denied what they had seen and experienced with the Church Restoration.

2 of the 3 came back to the church before their deaths, one stayed gone founding his own church.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have a question.

 

The BoM clearly has things that can be considered anachronistic.  Things like adieu and ....

 

Thoughts?

Did you just seriously type this?

 

This criticism is seriously the biggest none issue I have every come across on any criticism of any given topic.

[Kenngo1969]

At the risk of repeating myself Can't say it any better here than I did at the following address:

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65853-does-the-seerstone-give-you-heartburn/?p=1209524109

 

And, while I don't know that anyone ever laid out the conversations in detail, I have no reason to doubt Joseph Smith or Mother Smith, as the latter said that the former spoke in detail about Nephite culture, customs, civilization, et cetera, in conversations with the family.

[Kenngo1969]

Adieu = Problematic?!

 

  :rofl:         

 

 

Did you just seriously type this?

 

This criticism is seriously the biggest none issue I have every come across on any criticism of any given topic.

I don't find such criticisms of the Book of Mormon particularly persuasive, or particularly problematic.  That said, at the risk of channeling Forrest Gump, my mama always said that if ya cain't say somethin' nahs, ya shouldn't say nuthin' atall!

[Danzo]

Can't we say adieu to the adieu issue?

 

I can't see how any thinking person would take issue with it.

[Dion]

The High Priest could misread the Urim and Thummim. Here is an example from the Bible:

 

The priest was not always able to figure out what the letters were saying. There is a famous account about the High Priest Eli and the barren Hanna, who prayed fervently to G-d for children:
"But Hanna was speaking in her heart, only her lips were moving, and her voice was not heard, and Eli thought her to be a drunken woman. And Eli said to her: Until when will you be drunk? Throw off your wine from upon yourself. And Hanna answered and said: No, my lord, I am a woman of sorrowful spirit and I poured out my soul before the Lord. Mistake me not as an unscrupulous woman, for out of the abundance of my complaint and my vexation have I spoken until now" (I Sam. 1).
As Eli observed her, he read the letters appearing on the Breastplate as Shin-Cof-Reish-Hay: Shikorah a drunken woman. In fact the correct reading was Cof-Shin-Reish-Hay: Kesheira a worthy woman.

 

Rabbi Ullman

 

I suspect it was also possible for Joseph to misread the Seer Stone. He didn't claim that the Book of Mormon was perfect. Also, I just don't get why the Seer Stone would be such a problem for some members. Isn't it basically a latter-day Urim and Thummin?

 

 

 

 

[bluebell]

I don't understand how adieu is problematic.  Can you explain that one Teancum?

[Calm]

"Adieu" is in the Webster's 1828 dictionary:

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,Adieu

[Zakuska]

"Adieu" is in the Webster's 1828 dictionary:

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,Adieu

 

But it was a French word Cal...

[ERayR]

But it was a French word Cal...

 

some unknown French ship landed in Meso-America and taught a Nephite settlement French.

[Zakuska]

some unknown French ship landed in Meso-America and taught a Nephite settlement French.

 

He must have taught them English too.

 

Blame it on Haggoth and his shipping practice.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Zakuska

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

some unknown French ship landed in Meso-America and taught a Nephite settlement French.

While they were at it they taught them English too.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't find such criticisms of the Book of Mormon particularly persuasive, or particularly problematic.  That said, at the risk of channeling Forrest Gump, my mama always said that if ya cain't say somethin' nahs, ya shouldn't say nuthin' atall!

Normally you are right. But Teancum has been around for a while He should know better.

[Zakuska]

If I could Rep point Dion post #10 I would.

[canard78]

1. Adieu is English of his day.

2. Horses clearly did exist in Nephi's days.

- Horse populations just a few years later in the America's cannot be explained by the Dozen/whatever horses that survived when the Spanish came over.

- Horse traditions among the Indians that may predate the arrival of the Spaniards.

- pre-Columbian petroglyphs that appear to depict horses.

- Noticeable differences between the sizes of the typical Spanish horse and the much smaller American Indian ponies. (Spanish Horses breeding would have created Spanish Horses)

- The fact that the size of the two horses breeding would in fact create the size of the common American horse.

"Dozen/whatever..." - your precision has confounded me. Oh... it hasn't.

3. Educate yourself.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Metals/Steel

There is no reference to Nephite "steel" after 400 B.C.

Further Jarom mentions a number of “weapons of war,” this list notably leaves off swords. Rather, it includes “arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin.” If iron/steel swords were extensively used by Book of Mormon armies, why are they notably absent from this list of weapons, the only weapon-list that specifically mentions steel?

So on the one hand, the native population were close neighbours and the Nephites might even have been rulers over them... But the fact that these "others" are not mentioned one single time is not a problem because they were still there and the BoM is a scripture book, not a history book. Steel, on the other hand, IS mentioned but because it's not mentioned often enough then the only possible conclusion is that they had no steel after 400BC.

Have I understood that right? Makes perfect sense to me.

4. The Translation of the BOM came by "Revelation". Period.

The "means" of that revelation came by many methods.

There are some 6 different "means" according to all known accounts that the translation of the BOM occurred by, including having nothing at all, just pure revelation to the mind, no plates, no type of stone.

- Stone in Hat

- Urim Thummim (which are stones formed as a type of spectacles)

- Urim Thummim in hat

- Plates

- No Plates

- No Plates, Stones, or Hats

According to Brant Gardener, the historical record strong suggests that the actual text of the BoM available today was translated after the Nephite interpreters (or Urim & Thummim as they're incorrectly called) were taken away by angel Moroni. So the only likely method is the head & rock in the hat.

Bottom line is that the Translation occurred by Revelation. The means that revelation occurred is irrelevant.

Physical plates or otherwise are not required to receive revelation. Objects clearly assist a Prophet in receiving revelation sometimes hence the Seer Stone, Urim & Thummim and many other objects of scriptural history, but they are only assistants, not the process for which words from God are received. Even then, they still must go through the human filter of language and ones understanding. Anything can still have error when it concerns humans. That's one reason why Joseph said the BOM was the "most correct book" of scripture, not the "perfect" Word of God.

Conclusion: Recommend you correct some of your false assumptions.

There's a huge difference in the possible methods.

1) Words appear on the stone or in the air above the stone and Joseph reads them out. The words and not selected by Joseph, they are simply read out.

2) The stone was nothing more than a faith boost for Joseph but has no sacred or revelatory qualities. The words of the BoM are based on Joseph's (possibly inspired) impressions and articulations of ideas and images.

Which one do you think happened?

[Duncan]

Ask someone who speaks French if Adieu problematic, it seems us modern English speakers have a problem with it

[Teancum]

Did you just seriously type this?

 

This criticism is seriously the biggest none issue I have every come across on any criticism of any given topic.

No it was really someone else.

[Teancum]

Can't we say adieu to the adieu issue?

 

I can't see how any thinking person would take issue with it.

Of course it is not this one thing. I am surprised everyone is honing in on that. But maybe that is telling.

[Teancum]

Normally you are right. But Teancum has been around for a while He should know better.

Really? I do know better.

So ignore the adieu issue.

My point is, as I mentioned in the OP, that apologists argued that like any translation the translator would put the words into things they are familiar with. Thus tapirs become horses and obsidian becomes steel.

This seems to break down if words magically appear on a stone more like divine dictation.

Understand now?

Edited August 12, 2015 by Teancum

[Traela]

Really? I do know better.

So ignore the adieu issue.

My point is, as I mentioned in the OP, that apologists argued that like any translation the translator would put the words into things they are familiar with. Thus tapirs become horses and obsidian becomes steel.

This seems to break down if words magically appear on a stone more like divine dictation.

Understand now?

But what if the word being translated is the equivalent of horse? The Americas have a long, proud tradition of naming critters for similar looking (or in the case go the guinea pig, similar tasting) animals in the old world. I for one would be quite annoyed if some overly zealous translator in the future took my tales of Yellowstone and talked about bison instead of buffalo.

[Russell C McGregor]

If I could Rep point Dion post #10 I would.

 

I gave him one for you.