The conensus on if the BoM is directly from God.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

At the most recent FairMormon Conference, the one held in August of this year, Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack talked about the evidence of the translation having the earmarks of Early Modern English style and syntax from the 16th century.

I just looked, and the transcription of their presentation is not up yet on the FairMormon website. However, here is a link to my very brief report of it in the Church News.

Thanks for this input!

[bcuzbcuz]

16 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Today I found out that the word Atonement was made up by someone in the 1600's. How come it is in the BoM then? Is this just another anachronism that has been shuffled off as maybe Joseph Smith switching a word to help the reader understand? 

And did JS really read word for word on the Seerstone coming from God. If so, how did this word get in the BoM. I'm sure many of you have an answer and this is probably a non-issue. 

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng

"According to these accounts, Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument."

 

 

You're asking for something that cannot be. There will never be a consensus about the origin of the BofM. Because in the Mormon church, there is nothing that can be called consensus. You either accept the view that is handed from the top down, or you don't. Even when the church does a complete 180° on an issue, it is expected that everyone turn in the same direction, if not within the same time frame, at least within a reasonable time period.

I grew up with the idea that Joseph translated the BofM using the Urim and Thumin. That's what I taught on my mission. We had pictures that displayed the idea that Joseph sat with the plates and translated symbol by symbol from the plates. Now we are told that he looked into his hat and had a seer stone in the bottom of the hat and that the plates were most often not even in the same room or space. The present "consensus" is that he used his seer stone and now we even have photos of that stone.

When I grew up, blacks could not hold the priesthood. My first wife, now deceased, was, in 1970-76, completely against such a policy. She was cautioned and warned by her Relief Society president and our Bishop that her making such statements were inappropriate. In 1978 the "consensus" was that blacks could now hold the priesthood.

There is no such thing as a consensus when the directions and doctrine come from the top down. It is not a matter of a democratic vote, nor even discussion. As I was once told, "You're either in the boat or you're not." 

Edited September 27, 2016 by bcuzbcuz
grammar

[Storm Rider]

16 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Today I found out that the word Atonement was made up by someone in the 1600's. How come it is in the BoM then? Is this just another anachronism that has been shuffled off as maybe Joseph Smith switching a word to help the reader understand? 

And did JS really read word for word on the Seerstone coming from God. If so, how did this word get in the BoM. I'm sure many of you have an answer and this is probably a non-issue. 

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng

"According to these accounts, Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument."

 

 

When I translate an English or French letter I don't translate word for word, but I transfer a concept from one language into another.  Interestingly, this is how professional translators are taught.  The objective is to provide a text that closely matches the same meaning of the first language into the same context of the second language.  

I learned this years ago when the French Embassy wrote a letter in French to a friend of mine.  He asked me to translate it for him and it was the first bit of official translating I was doing.  As I began I considered how best to do it and chose, wrongly, to do a word-for-word translation.  What I produced was understood, but it was stilted and did not flow properly in English.  My friend then took it to a French expat to confirm my translation.  She said it was an accurate word-for-word translation, but that it is not how to best translate a document.  She proceeded to interpret the French document into English.

This concept of interpret is, imo, a more accurate perspective to have of the translation process.  Instead of a literal translation the Lord gave Joseph Smith an accurate interpretation of the what was written anciently.  

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

 

I grew up with the idea that Joseph translated the BofM using the Urim and Thumin. That's what I taught on my mission. We had pictures that displayed the idea that Joseph sat with the plates and translated symbol by symbol from the plates. Now we are told that he looked into his hat and had a seer stone in the bottom of the hat and that the plates were most often not even in the same room or space. The present "consensus" is that he used his seer stone and now we even have photos of that stone.

Please tell us how an Apple computer and Toshiba laptop differ functionally.  IOW, if I asked to use a computer to do an email and you gave me a MAC, would I have cause to complain and say, "I asked for a computer."

That is the problem that the doubters face.  They see the drawings of the translation process and read about it. but when they find out that LATER ON JS used a functionally equivalent to do the job, they fall apart at the seams.

The process becomes more important than whether JS was called as a prophet.

When I grew up, blacks could not hold the priesthood. My first wife, now deceased, was, in 1970-76, completely against such a policy. She was cautioned and warned by her Relief Society president and our Bishop that her making such statements were inappropriate. In 1978 the "consensus" was that blacks could now hold the priesthood.

The consensus is that in 1970-1976 they could not hold the priesthood.  The consensus is that today all worthy males can hold the priesthood.  You mind is not fully  functional because it is clouded by your doubts.

There is no such thing as a consensus when the directions and doctrine come from the top down. It is not a matter of a democratic vote, nor even discussion. As I was once told, "You're either in the boat or you're not." 

OR, you could swim in the cesspool outside the boat, and attempt to stay astride the boat.  One always has their choices.

 

Edited September 27, 2016 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

At the most recent FairMormon Conference, the one held in August of this year, Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack talked about the evidence of the translation having the earmarks of Early Modern English style and syntax from the 16th century.

I just looked, and the transcription of their presentation is not up yet on the FairMormon website. However, here is a link to my very brief report of it in the Church News.

A very nice summary.  Thanks for that, Scott.

[notHagoth7]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

At the most recent FairMormon Conference, the one held in August of this year, Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack talked about the evidence of the translation having the earmarks of Early Modern English style and syntax from the 16th century.

I attended a lecture Royal gave earlier this year at a bookstore in Utah County.

 

Very interesting.

[halconero]

Messiah and Christ are English words as well which transcribe Hebrew and Greek ideas respectively. Another way to express the word atonement is "reconciliation" a word which predates atonement.

I think the more important question with regards to anachronism is whether or not the idea of reconciliation or atonement was present in the times of the Book of Mormon, which is an unequivocal "yes." In that case, Joseph was simply translating the word used then into the best word in English for reconciliation and atonement.

[bcuzbcuz]

8 hours ago, cdowis said:

Please tell us how an Apple computer and Toshiba laptop differ functionally.  IOW, if I asked to use a computer to do an email and you gave me a MAC, would I have cause to complain and say, "I asked for a computer."

That is the problem that the doubters face.  They see the drawings of the translation process and read about it. but when they find out that LATER ON JS used a functionally equivalent to do the job, they fall apart at the seams.

The process becomes more important than whether JS was called as a prophet.

First of all you unsult my Mac, but I´ll let that pass. Mostly because your analogy to a Mac and PC has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Joseph Smith found the spectacles along with the breastplate buried with the golden plates....but he didn´t use them to translate the plates. Is that your mac or pc in this comparison? Then he used his head in hat, plus seer stone method to translate the plates. It is recorded that he seldom had the plates to look at while translating. 

You want to believe that his actions reflect a functional equivalence, a choice between translating the actual plates or seeing the translation through a stone in a hat. But that´s an equivalence you cannot offer any proof for. It is simply your opinion, your wishful thinking.Joseph Smith never said he chose the one method over the other for any discernable advantage. By your calculations, there would be no advantage.

But the church was very reticent to use the head in hat story for more than 180 years. Why? We can only surmise they felt that such a story would cause ridicule. But we don´t know that. They chose however to wilfully neglect to tell the head in hat story until it was no longer denialable. 

The day before the head in hat story was confirmed, it was the consensus that the plates were translated with Joesph behind a sheet, with the plates in front of him and that he translated and dictated to the scribe. The day after the head in hat story was approved, it was the church consensus that the previous method was no longer considerd kosher.

This is not something that "is the problem that doubters face". It is a problem for anyone who thinks they are heading in the right direction but must do a complete turn around and still be heading in the right direction. It requires the memory of a goldfish.

[RevTestament]

On ‎9‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 3:40 PM, Tacenda said:

Today I found out that the word Atonement was made up by someone in the 1600's. How come it is in the BoM then?

Probably because it is an English word for reconciliation, and God has to speak to English people using English. Does it really matter if we call it atonement or reconciliation? I like atonement better. It more suits what Jesus meant in John 17.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

First of all you unsult my Mac, but I´ll let that pass. Mostly because your analogy to a Mac and PC has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Joseph Smith found the spectacles along with the breastplate buried with the golden plates....but he didn´t use them to translate the plates. Is that your mac or pc in this comparison? Then he used his head in hat, plus seer stone method to translate the plates. It is recorded that he seldom had the plates to look at while translating. 

+++++++++++++++++++

A partial description (of the U&T) is given in JS—H 1:35. Joseph Smith used it in translating the Book of Mormon and in obtaining other revelations.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/urim-and-thummim

 35 Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a ^abreastplate, constituted what is called the ^bUrim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted ^c“seers” in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

You want to believe that his actions reflect a functional equivalence, a choice between translating the actual plates or seeing the translation through a stone in a hat. But that´s an equivalence you cannot offer any proof for. It is simply your opinion, your wishful thinking.Joseph Smith never said he chose the one method over the other for any discernable advantage. By your calculations, there would be no advantage.

Let me understand.  There is no difference between using  a breastplate with stones attached and the physical presence of the  plates, and a stone in a hat?  I fear you and I live on very different planes of existence if you are unable to see the advantage of the latter.

But the church was very reticent to use the head in hat story for more than 180 years. Why?

Let me guess.  you are going to use the gift of mind reading so famous with church critics.  Tell me where you obtained this gift, OR are you simply speculating based on you particular relationship with the church and spiritual things.

We can only surmise they felt that such a story would cause ridicule. But we don´t know that. They chose however to wilfully neglect to tell the head in hat story until it was no longer denialable. 

Sigh.  Or the stone in the hat has been made available for decades.

The day before the head in hat story was confirmed, it was the consensus that the plates were translated with Joesph behind a sheet, with the plates in front of him and that he translated and dictated to the scribe. The day after the head in hat story was approved, it was the church consensus that the previous method was no longer considerd kosher.

The consensus of chapel Mormons holds little interest to me.  It was a matter of public record.  Actually the antiMormons should find this hat and stone very problematic.  How big was that hat?  Large enough to hold a table, a candle and the source manuscript of the BOM?  Or did the hat have a window where JS could dictate from a manuscript.  How did he turn the pages.

The antiMormons are faced with the very annoying  problem on how JS was able to dictate for hours, the text of the BOM while his face was in the hat with only a stone to guide him.  Why don't you start a new thread and explain how he did that.  Skousen has demonstrated that the flow of the dictation was based on a fixed number of words (six, I believe), which belies the use of free form dictation.

This is not something that "is the problem that doubters face". It is a problem for anyone who thinks they are heading in the right direction but must do a complete turn around and still be heading in the right direction. It requires the memory of a goldfish.

Please start a new thread on how JS was able to accomplish the "stone in the hat" trick, having only the memory of a goldfish.  You will attempt to resolve a question that no other antiMormon has been able to resolve.  You will become a hero of the critics, instead of their hiding their heads in shame over this question.  (I speak with personal experience in conversing with them)

 

Edited September 28, 2016 by cdowis

[James Tunney]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

 

Where does this view that JS had a memory of a gold fish come from?  Isn't it simply an apologetic to bolster the historicity/scripture view of the bofm?  What if JS had a story-telling gift beyond the average person?  Isn't that "possible" like disappearing dna?  Couldn't that explain the bofm origin?  Also, keep in mind that the earliest manuscripts make human origin more likely.

[cdowis]

Read the full post again.  

Edited September 28, 2016 by cdowis

[bcuzbcuz]

11 hours ago, cdowis said:

Please start a new thread on how JS was able to accomplish the "stone in the hat" trick, having only the memory of a goldfish.

You do not move the goalposts. You have no goalposts at all. A wild kick in any direction is a go-o-o-o-o-oal. 

I may have expressed myself incorrectly, but I neither referenced nor mentioned JS name when referring to my goldfish analogy.

I´ll take it one more time, real slow. I originally wrote: "It is a problem for anyone who thinks they are heading in the right direction but must do a complete turn around and still be heading in the right direction. It requires the memory of a goldfish."

to clarify:      "It is a problem for anyone (true believing member that accepts current policy) who thinks they are heading in the right direction (by following leaders) but must do a complete turn around (new policy that heads in a complete 180 to previous policy) and (must do the mental gymnastics of a complete flip) BUT (despite a complete 180) they must think that they are still  heading in the right direction. It requires the memory of a goldfish."

See! No Joseph Smith

[cdowis]

Are you going to actually deal with the question, or can I assume this is your way of saying "no comment".

Edited September 28, 2016 by cdowis

[bcuzbcuz]

53 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Are you going to actually deal with the question, or can I assume this is your way of saying "no comment".

You are using "question" in the singular, but in your last post alone you asked 7. Please be more specific.

If you are referencing to the initial title posted by Tacenda, I have posted a response, twice.

[cdowis]

 

Actually the antiMormons should find this hat and stone very problematic.  How big was that hat?  Large enough to hold a table, a candle and the source manuscript of the BOM?  Or did the hat have a window where JS could dictate from a manuscript.  How did he turn the pages.

The antiMormons are faced with the very annoying  problem on how JS was able to dictate for hours, the text of the BOM while his face was in the hat with only a stone to guide him.

How did he do it?

Edited September 28, 2016 by cdowis

[cdowis]

13 hours ago, cdowis said:

Actually the antiMormons should find this hat and stone very problematic.  How big was that hat?  Large enough to hold a table, a candle and the source manuscript of the BOM?  Or did the hat have a window where JS could dictate from a manuscript.  How did he turn the pages.

The antiMormons are faced with the very annoying  problem on how JS was able to dictate for hours, the text of the BOM while his face was in the hat with only a stone to guide him.  Why don't you start a new thread and explain how he did that.

How did he do it?

[thatjimguy]

On 9/26/2016 at 5:36 PM, cdowis said:

I guess the Bible has the same problem.  Here is a search for "atonement" in the Bible.  So, if that word did not exist, were did it get into the Bible??

  Just another pathetic antiMormon argument, like "adieu" (French), "Christ" (Greek), born "at Jerusalem".

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=simple&format=Long&q1=atonement&restrict=All&size=First+100

The argument is not pathetic. Anyone in their right mind would scratch their head about it.

You may be sick of anti's sticking these things in your face, but that doesn't mean these questions cannot come from investigators as well.

 

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

 

Actually the antiMormons should find this hat and stone very problematic.  How big was that hat?  Large enough to hold a table, a candle and the source manuscript of the BOM?  Or did the hat have a window where JS could dictate from a manuscript.  How did he turn the pages.

The antiMormons are faced with the very annoying  problem on how JS was able to dictate for hours, the text of the BOM while his face was in the hat with only a stone to guide him.

How did he do it?

Photographic memory?

[cdowis]

24 minutes ago, thatjimguy said:

come from investigators as well

As I have noted elsewhere, this is apologetics, not a religious discussion. If an investigator has such questions, the simple answer is, 
"Don't worry about it.  Your task is to find out from God if the Book of Mormon is true."

If they antis are shaking their head, I simply refer them to the English dictionary.  Our Book of Mormon is in English, and these are English words.  The antis have quickly learned to avoid these arguments, acknowledging that they are pathetic when you simply tell to look in the dictionary.

Anyway, you and I can simply agree to disagree.

Edited September 28, 2016 by cdowis

[JAHS]

On 9/26/2016 at 4:36 PM, cdowis said:

I guess the Bible has the same problem.  Here is a search for "atonement" in the Bible.  So, if that word did not exist, were did it get into the Bible??

  Just another pathetic antiMormon argument, like "adieu" (French), "Christ" (Greek), born "at Jerusalem".

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=simple&format=Long&q1=atonement&restrict=All&size=First+100

Looking at earlier Bible English translations, specifically the John Wycliff Bible of about 1384, instead of the word Atonement, the words cleanse,  purify, or reconciling are used instead. As the OP said the word Atonement doesn't show up until translations after 1600.

[cdowis]

32 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Photographic memory?

That is certainly a possibility  worth exploring.  I assume that a document dictated by someone with such a memory would show some "footprints" or evidence of that ability, but that is a research question.  For example, the most notable clue to me is the consistent grouping of the text into groups of six words  -- what does that mean in this context.  Skousen speculates that indicates that the words appeared in the seer stone in groups of six words.  After dictating the six words, they disappeared and the next six words appeared.

Interesting.

BTW, I did a test of a photographic memory, and passed the test.  http://www.playbuzz.com/meganelizabeth10/only-1-of-the-population-can-pass-this-photographic-memory-test

Edited September 28, 2016 by cdowis

[JAHS]

26 minutes ago, cdowis said:

That is certainly a possibility  worth exploring.  I assume that a document dictated by someone with such a memory would show some "footprints" or evidence of that ability, but that is a research question.  For example, the most notable clue to me is the consistent grouping of the text into groups of six words  -- what does that mean in this context.  Skousen speculates that indicates that the words appeared in the seer stone in groups of six words.  After dictating the six words, they disappeared and the next six words appeared.

Interesting.

BTW, I did a test of a photographic memory, and passed the test.  http://www.playbuzz.com/meganelizabeth10/only-1-of-the-population-can-pass-this-photographic-memory-test

I took the test. I guessed at a couple of them and still got in the 1%. They didn't say how good you had to do to pass.

[Jeanne]

45 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I took the test. I guessed at a couple of them and still got in the 1%. They didn't say how good you had to do to pass.

I flunked it real bad..but they were nice about it.

[thatjimguy]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

As I have noted elsewhere, this is apologetics, not a religious discussion. If an investigator has such questions, the simple answer is, 
"Don't worry about it.  Your task is to find out from God if the Book of Mormon is true."

 

You can't possibly be serious about that.

Someone tries to sell you a used car, but CarFax tells you there is a problem with the engine. You ask the person about it and they reply; "Don't worry about it. Your task is to get a car."?

I wouldn't feel too comfy from there on out.

Edited September 28, 2016 by thatjimguy