The Book of Mormon is a conundrum.

[clarkgoble]

15 hours ago, RevTestament said:

What it refers to is essentially what the Church calls translation. All that other stuff you add on your own accord. Some may believe it , and others not.

I agree with BY to the extent that he appears to be talking about the beginning of the Millennium. Yes, despite being shown they were wrong, many peoples of the earth will not accept it - their churches and religions will continue - as I have already said - for several hundred years. To conclude that his statement lasts throughout the millennium contradicts other scripture. Every knee cannot bow if it is beholden to Allah of the Quran, or atheism. Satan will still have power - even by definition of the Church of the great and abominable Church. The two positions irreconcilably conflict. 

I don't disagree there - but Rapture entails something else in most conservative Protestant use. I'd also say that not everyone is translated and it's not clear what happens to those who are translated. So I disagree with your last part. I see no reason why a Muslim couldn't accept a theocracy, live a terrestrial law, accept Christ as a prophet yet remain a Muslim. I think even Young thinks everyone will eventually be converted but that may take quite some time.

But typically I don't get too dogmatic on predictions about the second coming. I am sure I'll be surprised and find many of my suppositions were incorrect. I'll not go too much further since the Rapture is a bit afield for the thread topic. If you want to continue to discuss it maybe start up an other thread.

Edited March 25, 2019 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

Yes, I don't think God would purposefully speak in older English forms.  I think He would want to communicate with his children in a direct manner and would speak clearly and plainly as the book of mormon, itself claims.

I think the sensible conclusion will be that Joseph Smith deliberately had his God speak in older, archaic forms, in order to impress his group of believers. Or perhaps the archaic forms are merely a product of Joseph Smith's spoken language?

Wouldn't your critique only hold if these archaic English forms couldn't be easily understood? Given peoples familiarity with the KJV at the time, I'm not sure the text would be unclear until well into the 20th century when the KJV and classics ceased to be read as regularly.

[Exiled]

44 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Wouldn't your critique only hold if these archaic English forms couldn't be easily understood? Given peoples familiarity with the KJV at the time, I'm not sure the text would be unclear until well into the 20th century when the KJV and classics ceased to be read as regularly.

Why make it more difficult? God already supposedly has intermediaries, plates, seer stones, etc., and now He complicates things a little further by speaking in a manner that fits better in the 16th century? Sure, perhaps if JS understands it, my hiding the ball theory gets weakened a little bit, but the part about it being unnecessary complication remains. Again, I don't speak to my son in riddles and through a bunch of intermediaries, or in an old form of English. God supposedly does here and that stretches credulity.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 3/23/2019 at 11:42 PM, Burnside said:

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

 

On 3/23/2019 at 11:59 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

Did you just list out the names of reservations and federally designated "Indian" tribes as evidence that Native Americans use the word Indian? 😂

That is not clear.  However, anthropologists prefer to use the invented generic designation "Amerind."  Real "indians" come from India.

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Why make it more difficult?

Because that was the expectation of religious language in the 19th century. That's why, as has already been mentioned, that pseudopigrapha and even a lot of sermons adopt a pseudo-KJV style of speaking. If God speaks to us in our language, then that was the language.

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Because that was the expectation of religious language in the 19th century.

Yes, people probably expected God would speak this way and pseudopigraphists and charlatans knew this.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

Yes, people probably expected God would speak this way and pseudopigraphists and charlatans knew this.

Certainly talking in a KJV way doesn't imply it's from God, if that's what you mean. I think what's interesting given Carmack's work though is that it isn't just aped KJV common at the time.

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

Why make it more difficult? God already supposedly has intermediaries, plates, seer stones, etc., and now He complicates things a little further by speaking in a manner that fits better in the 16th century?

Again why do you assume the LDS position entails God (Jesus or the Father) dictating the Book of Mormon rather than an other intermediary?  It seems to me you're projecting a lot of assumptions onto the text.

10 hours ago, stemelbow said:

i'd have to say, even as an outsider looking in, I'd be pleased to hear if Stanford's conclusions that suggest it'd be impossible or near impossible for Joseph to come up with the language bits that constitute EModE were untenable.  As I see it his conclusions open up a whole other can of crap, and only put stress on the Church.  In his effort to prove JOseph wasn't the author it seems to me he's only made the book look all the more kooky.  

The book is "kooky" to use your words not matter what. What counts is what we can learn about the text. I think the old English grammar is unexpected. As I've said, I don't think it has much or any bearing on whether it's historical. Even if it indicates Joseph didn't write the text that doesn't mean someone else didn't do so fraudulently or Joseph modified some other manuscript. But if there's a strange structure there I think we need to be honest about it and not surprise it just because it might make things look strange.

 

[Exiled]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again why do you assume the LDS position entails God (Jesus or the Father) dictating the Book of Mormon rather than an other intermediary?  It seems to me you're projecting a lot of assumptions onto the text.

It is supposed to be God's word and he doesn't excuse himself whether by his own mouth or the mouth of his servants. D&C 1:38. I guess that is where I get it. Also, the title page to the book of mormon claims God's hand was in it. Perhaps I wasn't precise, but the book is supposedly from God and so I presume He wants to be sure the words are at least somewhat correct or at least the principles expounded therein. So, I don't think it a stretch to think that the transmission should have been close to God dictating it or at least approving of the original transmission. Maybe the fact that He allowed possible corruption says something about the LDS view of Him, whoever he is? 

Really, my complaint comes from Bart Ehrman when he said in speaking about how the new testament was subject to the telephone game problems because the books were copies of copies of copies .... all based on oral transmission. He adroitly said, basically, if God wanted us to have his word, why didn't he preserve it better? The same goes for the book of mormon transmission, especially when compared to the direct transmission of the D&C and Book of Moses, supposedly. God transmits the two directly but goes through many intermediary steps to get us the supposed most true book.

[clarkgoble]

20 minutes ago, Exiled said:

It is supposed to be God's word and he doesn't excuse himself whether by his own mouth or the mouth of his servants. D&C 1:38.

You don't think he already addressed this in Ether 12?

• And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock at these things, because of our weakness in writing; for Lord thou hast made us mighty in word by faith, but thou hast not made us mighty in writing; for thou hast made all this people that they could speak much, because of the Holy Ghost which thou hast given them; And thou hast made us that we could write but little, because of the awkwardness of our hands. Behold, thou hast not made us mighty in writing like unto the brother of Jared, for thou madest him that the things which he wrote were mighty even as thou art, unto the overpowering of man to read them. Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we cannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words.
• And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness; And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.

27 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Really, my complaint comes from Bart Ehrman when he said in speaking about how the new testament was subject to the telephone game problems because the books were copies of copies of copies .... all based on oral transmission. He adroitly said, basically, if God wanted us to have his word, why didn't he preserve it better? The same goes for the book of mormon transmission, especially when compared to the direct transmission of the D&C and Book of Moses, supposedly. God transmits the two directly but goes through many intermediary steps to get us the supposed most true book.

Maybe preserving it wasn't his only interest? This seems on par with, "if God wanted people to have his word why not provide books to everyone in the world." The obvious rejoinder is that wasn't his prime focus.

Ehrman's argument in my opinion is silly and is on par with concerns that this isn't the best of all possible worlds if God could have done more. 

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

Why make it more difficult? God already supposedly has intermediaries, plates, seer stones, etc., and now He complicates things a little further by speaking in a manner that fits better in the 16th century? Sure, perhaps if JS understands it, my hiding the ball theory gets weakened a little bit, but the part about it being unnecessary complication remains. Again, I don't speak to my son in riddles and through a bunch of intermediaries, or in an old form of English. God supposedly does here and that stretches credulity.

Assuming that God was involved in the translation it does introduce an enigma for people that have assumed that Joseph was just mimicking the Biblical language of the King James Version since the EmodE in the Book for Mormon does not closely follow the KJV as to prevalence and usage making it very highly unlikely, as per Stanford, that Joseph Smith was the author. It has been noted that Stanford has found some EmodE elements in the Plat of Zion and some of the revelations that have found there way into the Doctrine and Covenants. However none of Joseph's personal writings, those that he penned himself, has been found to contain EmodE nor has it been found in texts he would have possibly had access to. A conclusion could be drawn that Joseph only produced text containing EmodE when he was receiving revelation or maybe under some unusual type of influence.

Whatever the Lord's purpose in this it certainly has caused a bit of a stir causing at least some LDS scholars to reexamine some of their assumptions.

On the assumption that God had no hand in the production of the Book of Mormon, then one would need to uncover how Joseph was able to conceal the document from which he dictated the Book of Mormon. If I remember correctly, Stanford asserts that in order to write a document containing that level of EmodE usage it would needs be second nature for the author.

Glenn

[Exiled]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

You don't think he already addressed this in Ether 12?

• And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock at these things, because of our weakness in writing; for Lord thou hast made us mighty in word by faith, but thou hast not made us mighty in writing; for thou hast made all this people that they could speak much, because of the Holy Ghost which thou hast given them; And thou hast made us that we could write but little, because of the awkwardness of our hands. Behold, thou hast not made us mighty in writing like unto the brother of Jared, for thou madest him that the things which he wrote were mighty even as thou art, unto the overpowering of man to read them. Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we cannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words.
• And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness; And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.

Maybe preserving it wasn't his only interest? This seems on par with, "if God wanted people to have his word why not provide books to everyone in the world." The obvious rejoinder is that wasn't his prime focus.

Ehrman's argument in my opinion is silly and is on par with concerns that this isn't the best of all possible worlds if God could have done more. 

Your guessing like I am at what God should or should not be doing or should have done. I don't believe feelings have any bearing on what is correct. God, if he exists like mormons say, doesn't bother to solve these questions. So we are left to guess.

As far as Mr. Ehrman, I guess you can claim that whatever is silly because you probably believe it all depends on your subjective views and feelings anyway. 

[Exiled]

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Assuming that God was involved in the translation it does introduce an enigma for people that have assumed that Joseph was just mimicking the Biblical language of the King James Version since the EmodE in the Book for Mormon does not closely follow the KJV as to prevalence and usage making it very highly unlikely, as per Stanford, that Joseph Smith was the author. It has been noted that Stanford has found some EmodE elements in the Plat of Zion and some of the revelations that have found there way into the Doctrine and Covenants. However none of Joseph's personal writings, those that he penned himself, has been found to contain EmodE nor has it been found in texts he would have possibly had access to. A conclusion could be drawn that Joseph only produced text containing EmodE when he was receiving revelation or maybe under some unusual type of influence.

Whatever the Lord's purpose in this it certainly has caused a bit of a stir causing at least some LDS scholars to reexamine some of their assumptions.

On the assumption that God had no hand in the production of the Book of Mormon, then one would need to uncover how Joseph was able to conceal the document from which he dictated the Book of Mormon. If I remember correctly, Stanford asserts that in order to write a document containing that level of EmodE usage it would needs be second nature for the author.

Glenn

Don't you think it's possible that Joseph Smith was using archaic forms as a way to impress his followers, as a magician uses "magic" to impress the audience?

[Storm Rider]

1 minute ago, Exiled said:

Don't you think it's possible that Joseph Smith was using archaic forms as a way to impress his followers, as a magician uses "magic" to impress the audience?

Not now, not ever. I see it as a desperate attempt to vilify Joseph Smith. It is the kind of thing an anti-Mormon, (no, I don't use that term lightly), brings up around the campfire when also talking about Area 51 and the man with the hook that comes out to kill people at night. It is a farce. 

That use of language was common and certainly not impressive except to the itching ears of people of our era of overwhelming ignorance. 

[Glenn101]

51 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Don't you think it's possible that Joseph Smith was using archaic forms as a way to impress his followers, as a magician uses "magic" to impress the audience?

A I noted in a former post, no one was impressed by what was considered bad grammar at the time, and it was bad grammar for that time. It was sneered at by the the learned of his day. Here is what Alexander Campbell said of Joseph:

Quote

And as Joseph Smith is a very ignorant man and is called the author on the title page, I cannot doubt for a single moment that he is the sole author and proprietor of it. As a specimen of his style the reader will take the following samples - Page 4th. In his own preface: - 'The plates of which hath been spoken.' In the last page, 'the plates of which hath been spoken.' In the certificate signed by Cowdery and his two witnesses, he has the same idiom, 'which came from the tower of which hath been spoken;' page 16, 'we are a descendant of Joseph.' 'The virgin which thou seest is the mother of God.' 'Behold the Lamb of God the Eternal Father,' p. 25; 'Ye are like unto they,' 'and I saith unto them,' p.44. 'We did arrive to the promised land;' p.49, 'made mention upon the first plate,' p.50. (An analysis of the book of Mormon with an examination of its internal and external evidences, and a refutation of its pretenses to divine authority)

I will quote the last sentence from my last post, "If I remember correctly, Stanford asserts that in order to write a document containing that level of EmodE usage it would needs be second nature for the author." Stanford has not made that statement in this thread so maybe he will enlighten us a bit further if he checks back in. But, if that statement is correct, then no, I do not believe that Joseph was trying or even could speak in an archaic dialect. He was reading the text off of something.

It would be sort of like an American rube with a limited education attempt to write a book in the English dialect of Great Britain without ever living among those who speak the dialect and practicing it until some type of fluency is attained. Such an one may "bloody well" get a few things right but would fail miserably in reproducing the grammar and word meanings currently in Britain.

Glenn

[Rajah Manchou]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Real "indians" come from India.

Real "indians" come from the Indies.
In the 16th/17th centuries America was the Indies.
If the author of the Book of Mormon lived in the 16th century, then the setting of the Book of Mormon is what was known about the Indies in the 16th century. 

The Book of Mormon is not anachronistic to the Indies. The text is perfectly aligned with what the 16th/17th century author knew about the Indies and the 6th century BC Israelites that were said to have lived there, in complete isolation from the Old World.

[stemelbow]

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Again why do you assume the LDS position entails God (Jesus or the Father) dictating the Book of Mormon rather than an other intermediary?  It seems to me you're projecting a lot of assumptions onto the text.

The LDS position is that the process entails God dictating.   The LDS position is already clear, even if there was an intermediary, that intermediary was God's doing, and thus God did it.  If the Church ever went the direction you are wanting to go--it'd have to denounce every comment ever made in the church by it's leaders on the matter.  Since Joseph Smith every leader has clearly put the dictation on God.  

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The book is "kooky" to use your words not matter what.

That's why I said more kooky.  

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

What counts is what we can learn about the text. I think the old English grammar is unexpected. As I've said, I don't think it has much or any bearing on whether it's historical. Even if it indicates Joseph didn't write the text that doesn't mean someone else didn't do so fraudulently or Joseph modified some other manuscript. But if there's a strange structure there I think we need to be honest about it and not surprise it just because it might make things look strange.

 

Fine.  But, as you indicate that does nothing for the position that the book is scripture, nor God's word, as is the position of the Church.  Such only complicates the notion that the book is scripture and God's word.  It introduces nothing but more questions, more arguments against historicity, more concerns about how or why God operates.  

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, Exiled said:

It is supposed to be God's word and he doesn't excuse himself whether by his own mouth or the mouth of his servants. D&C 1:38. I guess that is where I get it. Also, the title page to the book of mormon claims God's hand was in it. Perhaps I wasn't precise, but the book is supposedly from God and so I presume He wants to be sure the words are at least somewhat correct or at least the principles expounded therein. So, I don't think it a stretch to think that the transmission should have been close to God dictating it or at least approving of the original transmission. Maybe the fact that He allowed possible corruption says something about the LDS view of Him, whoever he is? 

I kind of like that Clark is taking a position in opposition to the Church--that God was not involved in the work Joseph did to come up with the BoM.  He's showing that all of the critiques really expose the Church's position and in order to maintain one will have to eventually go to the notion that God was not as involved, as the Church and its leaders have consistently maintained since the Book first appeared.  

[Rivers]

49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I kind of like that Clark is taking a position in opposition to the Church--that God was not involved in the work Joseph did to come up with the BoM.  He's showing that all of the critiques really expose the Church's position and in order to maintain one will have to eventually go to the notion that God was not as involved, as the Church and its leaders have consistently maintained since the Book first appeared.  

The church has never taken a position on exactly how the BOM was translated.  

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, Rivers said:

The church has never taken a position on exactly how the BOM was translated.  

So by the gift and power of God has never been the Church's position?  Cool.  I guess we're left with Joseph did it, with help from others.  

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

The LDS position is that the process entails God dictating.   The LDS position is already clear, even if there was an intermediary, that intermediary was God's doing, and thus God did it.

Why do you think that the LDS position entails dictation? I don't see that. I know some believe that - I think Skousen does for instance. But I don't see a formal LDS position that entails that. I also don't see how you don't see God acting through intermediaries (which he almost always does) entails a more fallible production.

24 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So by the gift and power of God has never been the Church's position?  Cool.  I guess we're left with Joseph did it, with help from others.  

That's really vague though - particularly in light of Ether 12.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I kind of like that Clark is taking a position in opposition to the Church--that God was not involved in the work Joseph did to come up with the BoM.

I never said that and that is 180° opposite of what I believe. Please don't put words in my mouth. The ones there may be wrong, but they are mine.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Since Joseph Smith every leader has clearly put the dictation on God.  

Please provide the quote where Joseph Smith or other prophets said it was dictated by God so there was only one way of doing the translation. Certainly Brigham Young didn't believe that.

• Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings.  If the people are stiff-necked, the Lord can tell them but little. (JD 9:311)

Again while some people believe what you are outlining - say Joseph F. Smith - it's hardly the only view and I'm not even convinced it's the majority view. But I'm open to evidence to the contrary.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Fine.  But, as you indicate that does nothing for the position that the book is scripture, nor God's word, as is the position of the Church.  Such only complicates the notion that the book is scripture and God's word.  It introduces nothing but more questions, more arguments against historicity, more concerns about how or why God operates.  

That's a feature not a bug, following Ether 12. I'd also point to Jesus in Matt 13. Some things are intentionally made non-obvious so that people have to turn to God to learn.

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, Exiled said:

Your guessing like I am at what God should or should not be doing or should have done. I don't believe feelings have any bearing on what is correct. God, if he exists like mormons say, doesn't bother to solve these questions. So we are left to guess.

As far as Mr. Ehrman, I guess you can claim that whatever is silly because you probably believe it all depends on your subjective views and feelings anyway. 

No I'm quoting from the text what God purportedly said about the issue. To the point that accepting the text is guessing I guess you're right. But I am actually providing a coherent system that actually lines up with the scriptures.

As to "it all depends on [my] subjective views" I think you're confusing Mark's position with my own. We have rather polar opposite views on this subjectivity question.

[stemelbow]

19 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Why do you think that the LDS position entails dictation? I don't see that. I know some believe that - I think Skousen does for instance. But I don't see a formal LDS position that entails that. I also don't see how you don't see God acting through intermediaries (which he almost always does) entails a more fallible production.

I didn't suggest anything about the degree of fallibility.  I can buy the notion that introducing more people means there will be more mistakes.  I suppose I'm missing why that's relevant since it remains the most correct book anyway.  What i'm suggesting though is starting with Joseph all the way to the present, the work that Joseph did to come up with the Book of Mormon was said to be by God, by the gift and power of God, no less.  moving to a position of "well not exactly by God, but moreso in a round about way God was involved" then that is a move.   

19 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That's really vague though - particularly in light of Ether 12.

I don't think so.  I think it's far more vague to insist that the church's position has not been that God was involved directly.  That indeed, is vague by definition.  

19 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I never said that and that is 180° opposite of what I believe. Please don't put words in my mouth. The ones there may be wrong, but they are mine.

I'm happy to be corrected.  But it seems to me you have pushed against the Church's position by arguing that by the gift and power of God is too vague to suggest God directed the dictation/translation.  It seems you are suggesting that in light of these findings from Carmack, there was likely an intermediary and that means God was not directing the translation, or might not have been.  I don't know how that is not arguing against the Church's position.  It seems to me it is.  Do you think the Church really would suggest that if an intermediary was involved that means God was not directing the work?  

19 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Please provide the quote where Joseph Smith or other prophets said it was dictated by God so there was only one way of doing the translation. Certainly Brigham Young didn't believe that.

• Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings.  If the people are stiff-necked, the Lord can tell them but little. (JD 9:311)

I think we're not getting each other.  What do you mean there was only one way of doing the translation?  Bottom line is do you think God was not involved in the dictation?  If so, what do you mean?  Since someone else, an intermediary, was dictating to Joseph that means God was not involved?  If an intermediary then does that mean any claims of by the gift and power of God really just means God was not dictating?  

Also, are you saying that since BY thought the BoM would be different if it was re-written, that means God was not directing the dictation the first time?  Or that BY thought that?  I think that'd be news to the current 15, honestly.  

19 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again while some people believe what you are outlining - say Joseph F. Smith - it's hardly the only view and I'm not even convinced it's the majority view. But I'm open to evidence to the contrary.

That's a feature not a bug, following Ether 12. I'd also point to Jesus in Matt 13. Some things are intentionally made non-obvious so that people have to turn to God to learn.

But that's really just a rather convenient response at this point.  I'm fine with that though, because it means you can't simply argue for the Church's position.  You have to take it on faith.  

[clarkgoble]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I didn't suggest anything about the degree of fallibility.  I can buy the notion that introducing more people means there will be more mistakes.  I suppose I'm missing why that's relevant since it remains the most correct book anyway.  What i'm suggesting though is starting with Joseph all the way to the present, the work that Joseph did to come up with the Book of Mormon was said to be by God, by the gift and power of God, no less.  moving to a position of "well not exactly by God, but moreso in a round about way God was involved" then that is a move.  

But isn't the whole point about "not only God" due to the use of intermediaries who inject fallibilism into the process? It seems like what you say above is essentially contradictory. 

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think so.  I think it's far more vague to insist that the church's position has not been that God was involved directly.  That indeed, is vague by definition.  

I'm not sure what you mean here. I think God was involved directly in that divine ability was there and the process was directed by him in the sense of being ordered. If God inspires me to go help someone God is directly involved, but since I'm the one making the decisions of how to help them then God's involvement in those particulars is minor.

So when I talk about the level of God's involvement I am assuming that some of the capabilities come from God as does the direction. However I am simultaneously arguing that we can't see choice of words as necessarily coming from God. That is God doesn't dictate the text. Intermediaries are involved who have some degree of control. (The level of degree is up in the air but I think it's a fairly high degree)

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But it seems to me you have pushed against the Church's position by arguing that by the gift and power of God is too vague to suggest God directed the dictation/translation.  It seems you are suggesting that in light of these findings from Carmack, there was likely an intermediary and that means God was not directing the translation, or might not have been.  I don't know how that is not arguing against the Church's position.  It seems to me it is.  Do you think the Church really would suggest that if an intermediary was involved that means God was not directing the work?  

It would be helpful here to clarify some words being used that I think are being used in multiple ways. "Directed" can mean he orders something to be done but doesn't determine how it is done. Ether 3 is often appealed to as an example of that where the lights are the Brother of Jared's choice even though God is involved by touching the rocks. So this is pretty mainstream LDS doctrine and usually brought up in the BoM course of study. However "directed" can also mean a micro-manager where most details are controlled for.

So I think God is involved to a certain degree and is a director in the first sense but I don't think God is controlling all the process in the sense that he allows decisions by intermediaries to determine much of the nuance of the work.

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But that's really just a rather convenient response at this point.  I'm fine with that though, because it means you can't simply argue for the Church's position.  You have to take it on faith.  

I confess I'm not following you here.

[stemelbow]

34 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But isn't the whole point about "not only God" due to the use of intermediaries who inject fallibilism into the process? It seems like what you say above is essentially contradictory. 

I assume everything ever done is potentially at least fallible.  I'm not sure why that is a factor in this discussion.  if you want to make the point that there were intermediaries so that means it is more fallible then it would have been if God was making the words appear, great. 

Quote

I'm not sure what you mean here. I think God was involved directly in that divine ability was there and the process was directed by him in the sense of being ordered. If God inspires me to go help someone God is directly involved, but since I'm the one making the decisions of how to help them then God's involvement in those particulars is minor.

So you are saying God told someone to go and tell Joseph what to dictate and that God was not involved with what those words, teachings or ideas were?  I am quite perplexed that you don't think this line of reasoning is arguing against the Church's position.    

Quote

So when I talk about the level of God's involvement I am assuming that some of the capabilities come from God as does the direction. However I am simultaneously arguing that we can't see choice of words as necessarily coming from God. That is God doesn't dictate the text. Intermediaries are involved who have some degree of control. (The level of degree is up in the air but I think it's a fairly high degree)

Fine, Clark.  I'm happy to hear it.  But again, I don't understand why you think this is somehow not arguing against the Church's position.

Quote

It would be helpful here to clarify some words being used that I think are being used in multiple ways. "Directed" can mean he orders something to be done but doesn't determine how it is done. Ether 3 is often appealed to as an example of that where the lights are the Brother of Jared's choice even though God is involved by touching the rocks. So this is pretty mainstream LDS doctrine and usually brought up in the BoM course of study. However "directed" can also mean a micro-manager where most details are controlled for.
 

I'm happy with this clarification.  I was using directed to mean that God was making sure it was done the right way, with the right story and inspiration involved.  I wasn't trying to use it as if God was just telling someone to go do something, and that person could do it however he/she wished.  

Quote

So I think God is involved to a certain degree and is a director in the first sense but I don't think God is controlling all the process in the sense that he allows decisions by intermediaries to determine much of the nuance of the work.

So by the gift and power of God could mean God told someone to do something but God himself was not in anyway involved with the story, teachings, or words used?  

Quote

I confess I'm not following you here.

I suppose what I mean is I'm fine with your position.  I just don't think there's much room for it in the Church and I don't know that its useful in arguing to defend the Church (particularly since it, as I see it, argues against the Church).

Edited March 26, 2019 by stemelbow

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Real "indians" come from the Indies.
In the 16th/17th centuries America was the Indies.
If the author of the Book of Mormon lived in the 16th century, then the setting of the Book of Mormon is what was known about the Indies in the 16th century. 

The Book of Mormon is not anachronistic to the Indies. The text is perfectly aligned with what the 16th/17th century author knew about the Indies and the 6th century BC Israelites that were said to have lived there, in complete isolation from the Old World.

This is one of your strongest points.  You should use it as the fulcrum of your entire case.  At the very same time, the  notion that America was the Indies was a huge mistake, not really assuaged by the backhanded claim that we are the West Indies.

The problem becomes even more complicated, if and only if the gold Book of Mormon plates found in upstate New York have nothing at all to do with the East Indies.  The EModE translator might indeed be fooled by his East Indies purview, but the content of the plates should be inconsistent with that view. How can such conflicts be reconciled?