If Joseph 'saw the words in English'

[_skippy the dead]

Oh snap.

[_Chap]

Well stap my vitals! That stuff was said by DCP on the electric television, in case you missed the fact that one of the words in Danna's post was a highlighted link:

http://www.pbs.org/Mormons/themes/smithrevelation.html

However, as always the context is important. He was speaking as a TV pundit, not as himself. So that is all right then.

[_KimberlyAnn]

Well stap my vitals! That stuff was said by DCP on the electric television, in case you missed the fact that one of the words in Danna's post was a highlighted link:

http://www.pbs.org/Mormons/themes/smithrevelation.html

However, as always the context is important. He was speaking as a TV pundit, not as himself. So that is all right then.

Something else interesting gleaned from the link:

It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true, that Joseph went into the [Sacred] Grove, that he saw the Father and the Son, that he talked with them, that Moroni came, that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates, that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith.

And, now, from the very next snippet on the page:

Look at the early revelations, and the introductions to them for a few months say, "Revelation received through the Urim and Thummim." Then that stops, and it never picks up again, because he is no longer dependent on those physical objects to open his mind to the revelatory process. Now, what does all that mean about the Book of Mormon? Could it be just a revelation instead of a translation? To me, yes. No problem. And it doesn't have any impact on what it has done subsequently. Yes, it could have been a literal translation of an ancient record, and this is what the result has been. But it's not the only explanation.

It appears that Greg Prince, and those who think like him re: the Book of Mormon translation process, are at odds with Gordon B. Hinckley.

KA

[_Daniel Peterson]

Hang on, what about this:

What about it?

Nothing in what I said to PBS commits me to any particular view of the role, if any, played by Joseph's own mind in the translation process, let alone to any concept of verbal inerrancy.

And, anyway, I've never believed that Joseph chose the English word horse to render the Nephite equivalent of tapir. If there's somebody who believes that (I'm aware of nobody who does), he or she is the person with whom the author of the opening post should talk.

[_Chap]

Nothing in what I said to PBS commits me to any particular view of the role, if any, played by Joseph's own mind in the translation process, let alone to any concept of verbal inerrancy.

It's kind of a strange image for us today, but it sort of makes sense if you think of a computer screen, I suppose: You don't want to be looking at [anything] against a bright background; it hurts your eyes. ... He would read off what he saw in the stone, apparently in passages of about 25 to 35 words. ...

(emphasis added)

It's a good thing that DCP has had this opportunity to clarify and qualify his words in the interview.

Otherwise we might have understood what he said as implying that Smith just read off what he saw in the stone in passages of about 25 to 35 words, perhaps in the same way that I am reading these words off a computer screen. And that would be far too crude an interpretation.

[_bcspace]

Joseph put his head in a hat, looked at a brown rock and the words of the Book of Mormon appeared to him in English. No excuses about horses, smelting ore for metal swords or anything else holds up if the statement is accurate.

The baloney of him choosing words he was familiar with to explain Tapirs as Horses is pure unadulterated b***s***. Cureloms and Cumoms was not changed to foxes and wolverines, was it?

God put the words in front of him on the rock and he read them off, or he didn't. It can't be both ways.

I agree though not as vehemently and not necessarily for the reason you describe. In the Book of Mormon, a horse is a horse of course. Cureloms and Cumoms could be any reasonable thing. Also, I notice that horses were not listed among the more useful of the animals to them; a possible indication of scarcity.

[_Daniel Peterson]

It's a good thing that DCP has had this opportunity to clarify and qualify his words in the interview.

Otherwise we might have understood what he said as implying that Smith just read off what he saw in the stone in passages of about 25 to 35 words, perhaps in the same way that I am reading these words off a computer screen. And that would be far too crude an interpretation.

Yes, it would.

[_Chap]

It's a good thing that DCP has had this opportunity to clarify and qualify his words in the interview.

Otherwise we might have understood what he said as implying that Smith just read off what he saw in the stone in passages of about 25 to 35 words, perhaps in the same way that I am reading these words off a computer screen. And that would be far too crude an interpretation.

Yes, it would.

It's kind of a strange image for us today, but it sort of makes sense if you think of a computer screen, I suppose: You don't want to be looking at [anything] against a bright background; it hurts your eyes. ... He would read off what he saw in the stone, apparently in passages of about 25 to 35 words. ...

Mark you, I don't really think that DCP's further explanation was really necessary.

Reading his words as transcribed, it is obvious he didn't mean that Smith read off what he saw in the stone, apparently in passages of about 25 to 35 words, in a way that sort of makes sense if you think of a computer screen.

[_marg]

Nice job! Richard Bushman couldn't have said it better.

Indeed. Joe's thoughtful, incisive posts are the reason I keep coming back to this board. His range, depth, and originality is really a marvel to behold.

You are correct Nevo, his posts are thoughtful and have depth ..good for you to notice.

[_The Dude]

Reading his words as transcribed, it is obvious he didn't mean that Smith read off what he saw in the stone, apparently in passages of about 25 to 35 words, in a way that sort of makes sense if you think of a computer screen.

Yes, he was careful to maintain a position of implausible deniability.