stemelbow Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 17 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: I really enjoy you Robert, but you lose all credibility when you jump the shark with the Elizabethan Ghost Theory stuff...if belief in the Book of Mormon requires this level of mental gymnastics...the church is in real trouble Depends on what you mean by in real trouble. The Church has been practicing these types of mental gymnastics since the beginning and let's just say we've had growth since then to some degree or another. So what do you mean by real trouble?
JAHS Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 15 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: My head is hurting...
coolrok7 Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 The Translation of the Book of Mormon was effected through the power of God manifested in the bestowal of the gift of revelation. The book professes not to be dependent upon the wisdom or learning of man; its translator was not versed in linguistics; his qualifications were of a different and a more efficient order. With the plates, Joseph Smith received from the angel other sacred treasures, including a breastplate, to which were attached the Urim and Thummim, called by the Nephites Interpreters; and by the use of these he was enabled to translate the ancient records into our modern tongue. The details of the work of translation have not been recorded, beyond the statement that the translator examined the engraved characters by means of the sacred instruments, and then dictated to the scribe the English sentences. . . . The Genuiness of the Book of Mormon will appear as the result of impartial investigation into the circumstances attending its coming forth. The fanciful theories of its origin, advanced by prejudiced opponents, are in general too inconsistent, and in most instances too thoroughly puerile, to merit serious consideration. Assumptions that the Book of Mormon is the production of a single author or of men working in collusion, a work of fiction, or in any manner a modern composition, are their own refutation . . . . (Articles of Faith, James E. Talmage, 1982, p.267, 269)
JAHS Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 13 minutes ago, stemelbow said: And what about the Josephs' translations fo the Bible, including Moses? What language did those writings come from? There's plenty for us to assume about all of this, but often such assumptions only raise more questions. As I said in another post, there is tons to be confused about regarding these translations. Right. I guess that's where faith comes in to play. This is a religion after all.
stemelbow Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 1 minute ago, JAHS said: Right. I guess that's where faith comes in to play. This is a religion after all. true. One can and should be allowed to see these mentioned scriptures as inspired writings of Joseph, without historical foundation on such grounds. After all, whether the content really happened or not must be secondary to the inspiration that one can achieve through the writings, right? 1
JAHS Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 6 minutes ago, stemelbow said: true. One can and should be allowed to see these mentioned scriptures as inspired writings of Joseph, without historical foundation on such grounds. After all, whether the content really happened or not must be secondary to the inspiration that one can achieve through the writings, right? Well I guess that could be true for some things like parables, etc, but I honestly believe the ancient writings did actually exist.
bcuzbcuz Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 2 hours ago, Derl Sanderson said: I, on the other hand, think the title of this thread should be... "Presentism. Let me give you a good example." Presentism.......that's when people offer a vague criticism called presentism.
coolrok7 Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 One can put their "faith" in things that are "false"!
Thinking Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 2 hours ago, Derl Sanderson said: "Presentism. Let me give you a good example." Ah, yes! The fallback apologetic explanation for when a critic's point cannot be otherwise refuted. 2
JAHS Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 14 minutes ago, coolrok7 said: One can put their "faith" in things that are "false"! True but according to the fruits I have seen and enjoyed so far I am going to call them true.
coolrok7 Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 Your right to do so JAHS. But it doesn't necessarily make it true even if lots of people believe in Joseph Smith.
coolrok7 Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) For years I've been seeing the term "translate/translating" used in describing Joseph Smith and the BofM, implying that the term is used in the normal sense most would understand, not with his face buried in a hat reading "letters of light" and dictating them to a scribe. Edited June 7, 2016 by coolrok7
Gray Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 If we could all give up on fundamentalism, would there be any more apologists or critics? 1
coolrok7 Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 David Whitmer, one of the three Book of Mormon witnesses (Until recently, I’ve never seen any depiction in LDS literature of Joseph with his face in a hat during the proselytizing effort): I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. 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 parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principle scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by the power of man. . . . (An Address To All Believers In Christ, 1887, p.12)
coolrok7 Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) Another example, Oliver B. Huntington recorded in his journal that in 1881 Joseph F. Smith, who became the sixth President of the Mormon Church, taught that the Lord gave Joseph Smith the exact English wording and spelling that he should use in the Book of Mormon: Saturday Feb. 25, 1881, I went to Provo to a quarterly Stake Conference. Heard Joseph F. Smith describe the manner of translating the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith the Prophet and Seer, which was as follows as near as I can recollect the substance of his description. Joseph did not render the writing on the gold plates into the English language in his own style of language as many people believe, but every word and every letter was given to him by the gift and power of God. So it is the work of God and not of Joseph Smith, and it was done in this way. . . .The Lord caused each word spelled as it is in the Book to appear on the stones in short sentences or words, and when Joseph had uttered the sentence or word before him and the scribe had written it properly, that sentence would disappear and another appear. And if there was a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect the writing on the stones would remain there. Then Joseph would require the scribe to spell the reading of the last spoken and thus find the mistake and when recorded the sentence would disappear as usual. (Journal of Oliver B. Huntington, p.168 of typed copy at Utah State Historical Society) Edited June 7, 2016 by coolrok7
thesometimesaint Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 Even the KJV of the Bible is not a direct translation.
stemelbow Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 8 minutes ago, coolrok7 said: Another example, Oliver B. Huntington recorded in his journal that in 1881 Joseph F. Smith, who became the sixth President of the Mormon Church, taught that the Lord gave Joseph Smith the exact English wording and spelling that he should use in the Book of Mormon: Why is this a significant telling? Oliver wasn't there, but heard Joseph F who wasn't there tell how he figured the process worked? It is really just a rendition based on the scribes accounts, it seems to me. 1
coolrok7 Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) The point being it was at a Stake Conference given by a man who became the sixth Mormon Prophet/President of the church. Also one of the three BofM witnesses gave his testimony of which I quoted. These content of these statements were never a part of the public proselytizing efforts of Mormon missionaries telling the Joseph Smith story that I have seen since the mid seventies. Edited June 7, 2016 by coolrok7
coolrok7 Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 The KJV is the official translation used by the "MORMON CHURCH" in which was translated from Greek manuscripts (the Textus Receptus if I'm not mistaken) still in existence
stemelbow Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 6 minutes ago, coolrok7 said: The point being it was at a Stake Conference given by a man who became the Mormon Prophet and one of the three BofM witnesses. These were never a part of the public proselytizing efforts of Mormon missionaries telling the Joseph Smith story. Ok. Then as you were. I agree the Church has caused problems by trying to change the story.
mfbukowski Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 3 hours ago, Derl Sanderson said: I, on the other hand, think the title of this thread should be... "Presentism. Let me give you a good example." Yep. That's the whole thread!
bcuzbcuz Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Yep. That's the whole thread! Ok, try explaining it to me like you would to a five year old. Pick whichever interpretation from the 1828 Websters that fits your wishes and describe in more than a five words what Joseph Smith actually did. Keep in mind that you must describe his usage of his hat, his stone(s), whether or not he had the golden plates in front of him, the purpose and use of a scribe. If the usage of the word translation is different in regards to the Book of Abraham explain why it is different and reference to anything that Joseph SMith himself about how that translation differed from his work with the golden plates. I'd be more than happy if you give your best shot at defining his "translation" without any "presentism".
mfbukowski Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 7 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said: The Webster's dictionary of 1828 provided 7 alternate definitions for the word translate. In regards to Joseph Smith taking a written text in a foreign language (choose your favourite: Golden plates for the Book of Mormon-reformed Egyptian, or Egyptian papyrus for the Book of Abraham) which of those 7 definitions do you think fits for what he did? Please refer back to the 1828 dictionary and compare your choice to the dictionary defintion. Because you shy away from using defiition no. 6 as the clarifying meaning, why have you chosen number 5 or no. 7? Because those were the ones which were relevant. What's your point? Should I have picked the irrelevant ones to make you happy?
stemelbow Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 14 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said: Ok, try explaining it to me like you would to a five year old. Why should anyone feel an obligation to respond to you like you're 5?
Robert F. Smith Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: ..................................................................... You said: Joseph Smith claimed that he “Translated” Golden Plates…yet if they ever existed he never used the plates. And I replied: Quote False. Any historian knows that Joseph immediately began to use the plates to copy down hieroglyphs and a translation of them from those plates -- the material taken by Martin Harris to a variety of well-educated persons. You then falsely claimed: "FALSE: You are over stating reality. We don't know this at all. What we do know is that Joseph produced some characters from a non-existent fictional (yet to be found anywhere in the entire world) language that he claimed came from plates. This is what we know. And as for Charles Anthon, I'm sure you have read his version of the events involving Martin Harris...very damning to the authorized story." Two non-Mormon Egyptologists (W. C. Hayes and Richard A. Parker, now deceased) stated long ago that the "Caractors" document contained actual cursive Egyptian. As for Charles Anthon (others were also shown the Caractors), he condemned himself by telling contradictory stories about Harris' visit. See my (with G. Thomasson and J. Welch) “What Did Charles Anthon Really Say?” FARMS Update, May 1985, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 73-76, online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=785 , and http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1110&index=19 ; see also my “Martin Harris’ Visit With Charles Anthon: Collected Documents on Short-Hand Egyptian,” FARMS Preliminary Report STF-85a (Provo: FARMS, 1985); 73pp. Forthcoming online at http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2839&index=110 You now say: 'From Church Essay: "None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham". Need I say more?' This falsifies your earlier statement that "Joseph Smith claimed that he “Translated” Egyptian Papyri containing the written words of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus …yet even the church now admits that this is not true." You falsified the claim made in the Church essay (with which all scholars agree) by suggesting that the only papyrus frags we now have are the only ones which contained the BofA. See my “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 8 online August 18, 2014, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham . Joseph is the one who claimed that the papyri was written by Abrahams own hand...not me. You, I'm guessing reject his claim just as I do. The papyri were not written by Abraham, only by rejecting Joseph's own statements regarding the papyri, reinterpreting, ignoring Joseph and inventing a new "translation" process can you maintain belief. If taken at his word, you can't. all I'm doing is logically following Joseph's own claim, finding it false and making a conclusion based on THAT false claim instead of inventing a new pathway to belief. Anyone who has not read the documents and is not familiar with ancient languages and archeology can invent any sort of apriori myth with which to attack the LDS Church, which is what you do. There is a choice for you, Johnnie. You can analyze the LDS faith by means of responsible and professional standards, or you can bring a lynch mob mentality to the issues -- as you now do. If the book isn't what Joseph claimed it is...who here is following the evidence and who isn't? ...................................you lose all credibility when you jump the shark with the Elizabethan Ghost Theory stuff...if belief in the Book of Mormon requires this level of mental gymnastics...the church is in real trouble Real historians and other sorts of scholars don't predetermine the conclusions of their research. They follow where it leads, even if incovenient. You clearly don't like to be inconvenienced.
Recommended Posts