Does The Seer Stone Cause Problems For Other Bom Apologetics?

[Guest]

Adieu = Problematic?!

 

  :rofl:         

Agreed...that is in no way problematic. Horses, elephants (other things like that) are limited to one book that was discovered an translated hundreds of years ago and simply translated...so who know. Also the house thing would not apply to any other part of the BoM as all marches, battles, wars, where measure in how long it took to walk everywhere. Also no mention of all these other creatures anywhere. Book of Ether is indeed odd, long on details and short on doctrine...it is the square peg in the round hole.

As to the "Seer Stone", now there is evidence that it was not just fairy tale.

Also, according to Book of Revelation, we will all one day receive our own, "white stone" (Seer Stone) and "new name". Sounds very Mormon and very Bible. As far as it being a "magic stone"...no such thing.

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

That Guy is full of straw. I didn't know it was November already.

The Book of Mormon contains a number of lists of metals. Steel is mentioned in the earliest ones, but it disappears after Jarom's time.

Like many other books that are not history books, The Book of Mormon contains useful information about the period during which it was written.

[carbon dioxide]

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?

What is a problem and what is not a problem is in the eye of the beholder.  I will admit that if the plates were not with Joseph during the translation, it raised the question of why there were even needed.  Why not just give Joseph a lump of coal?  But perhaps out of a need to keep the plates secure, God allowed a translation to occur without them being in his immediate presence.  I don't need every t crossed to remain a believer in the book. 

[mapman]

This doesn't change anything in terms of the translation process since the Urim and Thummim presumably worked in the same way as the seer stone.  Some scribes seemed to believe that words would actually physically appear on the stone, but Joseph Smith never said that, and he would be the only one to really know. There will still be people who argue that the words actually appeared on the stone, while others will argue that it was something that he was just expressing revelation that flowed into his mind and that the stone was a way to focus his mind. If anything, the stone-in-a-hat would be evidence for a looser translation since the plates weren't even apparently directly involved in the translation except for at the beginning when he was studying the characters and trying to get someone with learning to translate it. I tend to think that Joseph Smith's translations were more like his other revelations than a scholarly translation.

[omni]

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.

So, is it common in translations of animal names to use the literal translation instead of the intended meaning? For example if you were translating hippopotamus from Greek into English would you use "water horse" instead of "hippopotamus"?

[hagoth7]

But it was a French word Cal...

Yep. And much of the English vocabulary derives from French and Latin, even though it is a Germanic language.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

It heads my list of all-time stupidest anti-Mormon criticisms.

 

No. 2 on the list is Jerusalem, the land (not the city) of our fathers, being the birth place of Christ.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Mixed in with a pack of solid anti-Mormon arguments, this would still be a stupid one.

[Scott Lloyd]

This doesn't change anything in terms of the translation process since the Urim and Thummim presumably worked in the same way as the seer stone.  Some scribes seemed to believe that words would actually physically appear on the stone, but Joseph Smith never said that, and he would be the only one to really know. There will still be people who argue that the words actually appeared on the stone, while others will argue that it was something that he was just expressing revelation that flowed into his mind and that the stone was a way to focus his mind. If anything, the stone-in-a-hat would be evidence for a looser translation since the plates weren't even apparently directly involved in the translation except for at the beginning when he was studying the characters and trying to get someone with learning to translate it. I tend to think that Joseph Smith's translations were more like his other revelations than a scholarly translation.

The presence of the pates was necessary in the beginning so everyone back then -- and all of us since -- could grasp that there really was a physical, tangible record kept by a people who really did exist.

[cinepro]

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.

Do you have some sources for any of these claims? Or did you just make it up as you typed?

 

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?

Jarom says:

 

 

Jarom 1:8 And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war -- yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.

But I agree that if you ignore him saying "steel" in that verse, then he never mentions it.

 

 

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

Do you have sources for the "Urim and Thummim in hat" and "No Plates, Stones or Hats"? Also do you have any sources that show the Urim and Thummim and plates after the loss of the 116 pages?

But to the point of this thread, I don't think the seer stone raises any old questions anew. But I do think it crystalizes many new and interesting questions about Joseph Smith and early Church history that used to be much easier to ignore.

Edited August 13, 2015 by cinepro

[cinepro]

That Guy is full of straw. I didn't know it was November already.

The Book of Mormon contains a number of lists of metals. Steel is mentioned in the earliest ones, but it disappears after Jarom's time.

Like many other books that are not history books, The Book of Mormon contains useful information about the period during which it was written.

 

The Book of Mormon pretty much stops mentioning any metals after the Book of Jarom.  Brass is mentioned in association with the brass plates.  There are a few mentions of metals in Mosiah.  But I'm not sure that steel not being mentioned later in the book means anything much beyond the fact that it isn't mentioned much.

 

Imagination has always been an overused component of apologetics, but sometimes overemphasis can be overused as well.

 

[Teancum]

So, is it common in translations of animal names to use the literal translation instead of the intended meaning? For example if you were translating hippopotamus from Greek into English would you use "water horse" instead of "hippopotamus"?

My point is tha it seems the use of the seer stone without the plates present is not a translation but rather pure revelation and even divine dictation. Thus there would be no reason for such meaning as in your example above.

[Teancum]

Mixed in with a pack of solid anti-Mormon arguments, this would still be a stupid one.

Ok I should have left it out since most here seem to want to deal with that one point.

My post was not anti Mormon Scott. It is an honest question.

Essentially most the answers are it does not matter to anyone who is a true believer how the Book of Mormon came about. It does not matter that the main narrative the church has promoted regarding its creation seems to be different than what the historical record shows. It does not matter that the many anachronisms would seem to not have some into the text if it he method is more along the line of a stone in the hat.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Teancum

[HappyJackWagon]

It heads my list of all-time stupidest anti-Mormon criticisms.

 

No. 2 on the list is Jerusalem, the land (not the city) of our fathers, being the birth place of Christ.

 

Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 11 Aug 2015 - 4:23 PM, said:

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.

 

 

Danzo, on 11 Aug 2015 - 4:54 PM, said:

Can't we say adieu to the adieu issue?

 

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

 

Teancum,

 

Despite many rude and jerkish comments by the "true christians" on this site, I think your OP asks an interesting question. It's a question of mechanical translation versus revelatory translation. With teh new Ensign article it seems that the church is privileging the mechanical method of Joseph actually seeing the exact words he would transcribe instead of an alternate theory that the stone helped him to focus his attention on the revelation coming to his mind.

 

When revelation comes to the mind it seems that there is always some kind of combination of God's word mixed with the individuals own understanding. Maybe the ratio is 2% God and 8% individual or vice versa. I don't know. But when the stone feeds the words directly to JS it would seem strange to expect anachronisms, like direct quotations unique to the Bible edition Joseph possessed. After all, if every word is directly from God, why are there any errors at all?

 

I'm not sure anyone really knows how the translation worked, which includes church leaders. So they are privelging some accounts over others by witnesses to the translation. But they only witness to what they saw or experienced, not what Joseph saw or experienced. Personally, IF the BoM was "translated" by the power of God at all, I would tend to think of it more as a revelatory experience. This makes sense to me since the plates weren't needed & the U&T that were inlcuded in the box were not needed thus indicating there was no "translation" as anyone would typically consider it. Instead Joseph used his familiar stone in a hat to help him focus

[jkwilliams]

The Book of Mormon pretty much stops mentioning any metals after the Book of Jarom.  Brass is mentioned in association with the brass plates.  There are a few mentions of metals in Mosiah.  But I'm not sure that steel not being mentioned later in the book means anything much beyond the fact that it isn't mentioned much.

 

Imagination has always been an overused component of apologetics, but sometimes overemphasis can be overused as well.

Here's an interesting verse from Helaman 6:

 

And behold, there was all manner of gold in both these lands, and of silver, and of precious ore of every kind; and there were also curious workmen, who did work all kinds of ore and did refine it; and thus they did become rich.

 

How exactly does one "refine" ore? So, it's clear that around the time of Christ, the Nephites were still refining ore.

We read in Mormon 8:5:

 

Behold, my father hath made this record, and he hath written the intent thereof. And behold, I would write it also if I had room upon the plates, but I have not; and ore I have none, for I am alone. My father hath been slain in battle, and all my kinsfolk, and I have not friends nor whither to go; and how long the Lord will suffer that I may live I know not.

 

Moroni tells us that he would make more plates, except he has no ore. Unless we believe the plates were beaten ore, this implies a method of refining. I'm unaware of an alternative method of refining ore than the one mentioned explicitly by the Jaredites and Nephi.

Edited August 13, 2015 by jkwilliams

[stemelbow]

No scripture seems to value accuracy, as we view accuracy these days. If, say, Matthew is inspired, having been written by a jewish rich convert after Matthew was gone and then attribute to Matthew as a response to Mark, doesn't seem like people need to get worked up about the confusing details found in the BoM. These does suggest, of course, the book can be a fraud. It can also be scripture. I have a hard time accepting the notion that Joseph looked in a hat saw exact phrasings and that phrasing didn't go away until written accurately-type of stuff. I think it was pretty impression oriented. Joseph might have been given some pretty strict phrasing in some cases and other times he was given a rendition of events and he spit it out as best as he understood. I wouldn't doubt it. I guess the point is, we don't really know what to expect. We're just putting our expectations on things in order to validate scripture--which as it turns out, we don't seem to understand very well.

[jkwilliams]

3 Nephi 6 mentions Nephite horses, and coincidentally also mentions precious metals.

 

And now it came to pass that the people of the Nephites did all return to their own lands in the twenty and sixth year, every man, with his family, his flocks and his herds, his horses and his cattle, and all things whatsoever did belong unto them.

 

 

As I recall, the latest apologetic argument for the mention of horses and chariots in Alma 18-20 is that these refer to the king's litters that are emblazoned with depictions of "battle beasts," or animal alter-egos, representing some sort of supernatural protection or strength. (OK, I found it: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Chariots).

 

I'm  having a hard time with this. In isolation, the single reference in Alma 20 could fit with this description. But then the description of Ammon "feeding thy horses" in Alma 18 makes no sense. How does one feed a symbolic animal carved or depicted in the "regalia of the king"? And when we get to 3 Nephi, are we to believe that these "battle beasts" were carried by "every man, with his family"? If we accept this explanation, we get "his flocks and his herds, his [symbolic depictions of the king's animal alter-egos] and his cattle." 

 

Am I missing something?

[stemelbow]

3 Nephi 6 mentions Nephite horses, and coincidentally also mentions precious metals.

 

 

As I recall, the latest apologetic argument for the mention of horses and chariots in Alma 18-20 is that these refer to the king's litters that are emblazoned with depictions of "battle beasts," or animal alter-egos, representing some sort of supernatural protection or strength. (OK, I found it: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Chariots).

 

I'm  having a hard time with this. In isolation, the single reference in Alma 20 could fit with this description. But then the description of Ammon "feeding thy horses" in Alma 18 makes no sense. How does one feed a symbolic animal carved or depicted in the "regalia of the king"? And when we get to 3 Nephi, are we to believe that these "battle beasts" were carried by "every man, with his family"? If we accept this explanation, we get "his flocks and his herds, his [symbolic depictions of the king's animal alter-egos] and his cattle." 

 

Am I missing something?

Why the feeding must have been just as symbolic. Ammon didn't really feed animals. He was honoring the symbol and thus feeding them. And sure, to your next question. People in history have carried all sorts of things as they traveled.

[jkwilliams]

Why the feeding must have been just as symbolic. Ammon didn't really feed animals. He was honoring the symbol and thus feeding them. And sure, to your next question. People in history have carried all sorts of things as they traveled.

 

So, we should interpret Alma 18 as Ammon watering the flocks and honoring the symbolic representations of the king's animal alter-egos?

[stemelbow]

So, we should interpret Alma 18 as Ammon watering the flocks and honoring the symbolic representations of the king's animal alter-egos?

I was just playing with ya.

[jkwilliams]

I was just playing with ya.

 

I thought you might be, but you never know.

[cinepro]

3 Nephi 6 mentions Nephite horses, and coincidentally also mentions precious metals.

 

 

As I recall, the latest apologetic argument for the mention of horses and chariots in Alma 18-20 is that these refer to the king's litters that are emblazoned with depictions of "battle beasts," or animal alter-egos, representing some sort of supernatural protection or strength. (OK, I found it: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Chariots).

 

I'm  having a hard time with this. In isolation, the single reference in Alma 20 could fit with this description. But then the description of Ammon "feeding thy horses" in Alma 18 makes no sense. How does one feed a symbolic animal carved or depicted in the "regalia of the king"? And when we get to 3 Nephi, are we to believe that these "battle beasts" were carried by "every man, with his family"? If we accept this explanation, we get "his flocks and his herds, his [symbolic depictions of the king's animal alter-egos] and his cattle." 

 

Am I missing something?

 

This thread was a lot more fun when we could just make fun of someone bringing up the "Adieu" argument...  Can we go back to that?

[jkwilliams]

This thread was a lot more fun when we could just make fun of someone bringing up the "Adieu" argument...  Can we go back to that?

Well, if people can mock Teancum for bringing up a pretty bad critical argument, we should be able to discuss weak apologetic arguments as well.

[Brant Gardner]

3 Nephi 6 mentions Nephite horses, and coincidentally also mentions precious metals.

 

 

As I recall, the latest apologetic argument for the mention of horses and chariots in Alma 18-20 is that these refer to the king's litters that are emblazoned with depictions of "battle beasts," or animal alter-egos, representing some sort of supernatural protection or strength. (OK, I found it: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Chariots).

 

I'm  having a hard time with this. In isolation, the single reference in Alma 20 could fit with this description. But then the description of Ammon "feeding thy horses" in Alma 18 makes no sense. How does one feed a symbolic animal carved or depicted in the "regalia of the king"? And when we get to 3 Nephi, are we to believe that these "battle beasts" were carried by "every man, with his family"? If we accept this explanation, we get "his flocks and his herds, his [symbolic depictions of the king's animal alter-egos] and his cattle." 

 

Am I missing something?

I may be the long ago source of the idea you mention. I doubt that the battle beast is the best explanation. What is important to the discussion of horses in the Book of Mormon is the nature of the translation. If a horse is a horse--that is the English precisely represents the word on the plates, that creates all of the problems that we have talked about for ages. However, it the translation allowed for the use of terms that were culled from Joseph's vocabulary, then the dual problem of horses and chariots becomes a question of what might have triggered that association. The battle beast idea fits into a militaristic context that might have led to Joseph's "chariot" translation. However, that doesn't fit the text. Nothing in the text puts the horse in a military context. They are associated with a "chariot" but only when mentioned together. It does appear to be a live animal as it is hard to conceive of why the translation would have Ammon feed them if they weren't alive. The 3 Nephi 6 reference interestingly lists them among food animals--or perhaps just important animals. 

 

The occasion where we see horses and chariots has a direct correspondence with what happens on Maya royal visits to other cities, which is why that particular context may give us our best information on what the chariot was. Pottery often shows a dog with a litter, but that might be a different context.

[jkwilliams]

I may be the long ago source of the idea you mention. I doubt that the battle beast is the best explanation. What is important to the discussion of horses in the Book of Mormon is the nature of the translation. If a horse is a horse--that is the English precisely represents the word on the plates, that creates all of the problems that we have talked about for ages. However, it the translation allowed for the use of terms that were culled from Joseph's vocabulary, then the dual problem of horses and chariots becomes a question of what might have triggered that association. The battle beast idea fits into a militaristic context that might have led to Joseph's "chariot" translation. However, that doesn't fit the text. Nothing in the text puts the horse in a military context. They are associated with a "chariot" but only when mentioned together. It does appear to be a live animal as it is hard to conceive of why the translation would have Ammon feed them if they weren't alive. The 3 Nephi 6 reference interestingly lists them among food animals--or perhaps just important animals. 

 

The occasion where we see horses and chariots has a direct correspondence with what happens on Maya royal visits to other cities, which is why that particular context may give us our best information on what the chariot was. Pottery often shows a dog with a litter, but that might be a different context.

 

Hi, Brant, it's nice to see you around. The mention of flocks and herds of animals used for food or transportation is problematic, as that doesn't quite match anything we see in the Americas, but the "battle beasts" explanation doesn't really work, and you seem to agree. Who knows? Every theory for the Nephites has some big problems, and at this point, it seems like picking the one with the fewest. 

 

Again, it's good to see you,

 

John