DiscussMormonism.com

edited

Thank you for the post sweetheart_ty. I found it very interesting and it might be possible. However, I seriously doubt Joseph Smith could read Egyptian and it is unlikely he understood what the papyrus was which is a major assumption you make. It is possible I am mistaken about that, but I've not really seen much evidence in other material that he produced to show me that he possessed such knowledge. And if he did, I would be very puzzled by the confused accounts we have from him and others about the papyrus then.

sweetheart_ty wrote:Thank you, Tobin. I would respond to your analysis by pointing out that my argument can be thought of as an "if/then" proposition which resolves (or at least is intended to resolve) an if/then puzzle. The puzzle is, "If Joseph Smith could translate, then why did he claim to translate writings which were later proven to be fake?" The puzzle seeks to challenge the internal consistency of LDS beliefs. The solution is that "If Joseph Smith could translate, then he probably did not claim to translate writings which were later proven to be fake, because a, b and c, and therefore the puzzle contains a false premise."

It is an interesting solution if you accept the premise that because Joseph Smith was a prophet of God he was perfect and could not be fooled (ie. attempt to translate a fake set of plates). However, my view of Joseph Smith was he was human and liable to make mistakes. So how do we know where the man ends and God takes over becomes the question then (ie which things are correct and which are human guesses/opinions/or simply mistakes made by men)? My answer would be that one should seek the Lord and seek the answers from him. I believe (and it has been my experience seen I have both seen and heard the Lord myself) that is the true purpose of prophets and what they reveal (ie the scriptures). They are to get us to seek and speak to the Lord ourselves and to learn for ourselves what is true and what is not.

It was all man. God was not involved.

The cake is a lie.

A change has been made in the First Book of Nephi, evidently in an attempt to strengthen the Mormon claim that baptism was practiced by the people in the Old Testament. This verse is taken from Isaiah 48, and appears as follows in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon:

"Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the Lord ... " (Book of Mormon, 1830 edition, page 52)

In modern editions it reads as follows:

"Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, or out of the waters of baptism, who swear by the name of the Lord ... " (Book of Mormon, 1964 edition, 1 Nephi 20:1)

It is interesting to note that even the signed statement by the eight witnesses to the Book of Mormon has been altered. In the 1830 edition (last page) it read:

"... that Joseph Smith, Jr. the Author and Proprietor of this work, has shewn unto us the plates ... "

In the 1964 edition it reads:

"... That Joseph Smith, Jun., the Translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates ... "

sweetheart_ty wrote:I agree with you about seeking answers from the Lord. Do you mind if I ask about your experience of which you speak?

At one time I was both an atheist and ex-Mormon. I'll just say (since many participants on this forum like to make fun of such things) that I know there is a God and that changed my view dramatically.

sweetheart_ty wrote:And, just to clarify, I wasn't trying to imply that Joseph could read Egyptian conventionally. Is that what you perhaps thought I was saying? I believe Joseph had a role to play in translation which extended beyond reciting words, and that he influenced the choice of English words which resulted.

I don't think Joseph Smith could translate Egyptian at all. I believe the Book of Abraham was revealed to Joseph Smith, just like the Book of Mormon was. Joseph Smith also could not read reformed Egyptian.

sweetheart_ty wrote:Tobin, it sounds like you have had some interesting experiences! Are you on Facebook? I'd like to hear more if you are up to sharing. Facebook is the best way to connect with me - Facebook.com/ryanjlarsen -

I do not, but I may share more with you in the future as I feel called upon by the Spirit. That being said, I would strongly encourage you to continue to seek the Lord with all your might. I did not realize how close and accessible the Lord is and if we exert ourselves though faith and diligence to the Lord, he can not remain hidden from us and must reveal himself and will reveal the truth to us. It is as the prophets have truly said, we receive a little here and a little there, until we come to a fullness of the truth.

sweetheart_ty wrote:Just to clarify, I do agree with you that Joseph Smith didn't "understand" Egyptian in the sense of being literate in Egyptian. My argument actually does not make that assumption, but I might not have explained things clearly enough in the above paper. Essentially, I believe Joseph translated through the gift and power of God, but that he was given choices. He literally served as a translator - receiving the meaning behind the Egyptian message and then translating that meaning into English words with the guidance of the Holy Ghost. So, that's where the grammar comes in. The messages written on Egyptian papyrus did not follow the coherent structure which Joseph had grown accustomed to when he translated the Gold Plates. The Gold Plates followed Hebrew grammatical structure, even though they were written in reformed Egyptian.

Obviously Joseph Smith was important to the process. I do not dispute that. After all, God could have simply typed up the translations and handed them to him and said, "Here go print them." Many on this forum argue that Joseph Smith was a sock puppet for the Lord and just copied down the words that appeared to him. I find that very unlikely. Also, the stories of the prophet not looking at the plates and papyrus and instead looking at "seer stones" (most likely one of the U&T seer stones) are undoubtedly true. Joseph Smith could not read the plates or papyus and so looking at them would have been of little use. The only things he could reveal are those that the Lord showed him. It is interesting that the U&T were to be used covered with a veil (as Moses covered his face). The U&T literally means lights and perfections and is a very apt description. They shine forth with a brilliant light and reveal the truth of all things. How interesting that Joseph Smith would cover his face with a hat when using them then?

sweetheart_ty wrote:The principle at play here is one we see quite often. For instance, many native Asian speakers continue to use their native grammatical structure when they learn English, and they find it difficult to pick up certain elements of English grammar. This makes Asian immigrants easy to impersonate in some respects.

I don't necessarily buy this argument since the Book of Mormon was rendered into KJB English (and imperfectly so since a human being was involved). I don't think KJB English reflects hebrew grammatical structure at all. Obviously there are certain things that survive that process, since it is a word-for-word translation. But I don't think looking at the English translation can reveal very much about how the original language was necessarily composed.