does it read like metal plates?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I suppose you could say Mormon wrote the record in a sort of text messaging sort of way (Reformed Egyptian).

I don't see why the phrases:

Lo, and behold

or

And it came to pass

Could have been written like:

'

So you could have something akin:

http://www.netlingo.com/acronyms.php

An example:

And it came to pass, that I, Dr. Cam, found much rejoicing in posting at Mormon Discussions forums, in other words, it helped me pass much time.

Reformed Egyptian on metal plates could be:

'IDClol*:@MDIOW+

Take the basics of language, sprinkle in a bit of prophetic license & Godly influence and voila...

V/R
DC4MNC

[_Chap]

I suppose you could say Mormon wrote the record in a sort of text messaging sort of way (Reformed Egyptian).

....

Well, according to the latest research (isn't it fun to use that phrase?) he was writing in (Tironian) shorthand. The fact he knew it was a miracle of course.

But even then, what was the point of all the repetitious and periphrastic burbling?

As Tarski says. it often sounds like someone making it all up on the fly, but unable ever to say "Stop - delete that. It ought to have been XXXXX instead", and hence having to add lots of 'or to put it another way YYYY' stuff.

[_truth dancer]

Oh dear... y'all do not understand the "translation" process.

Joseph Smith was a channeler.

Take for example the D&C; Joseph Smith is channeling Jesus Christ.

The Book of Abraham was obviously not a translation but a channeling of Abraham.

Similarly, the Book of Mormon is not a tight nor a loose translation but a channeled work. Joseph Smith had the ability to channel the various writers of the Book of Mormon. He did not require the plates, and the stone in the hat was just a support to help him block out distractions.

The reason the Book of Mormon reads as if someone is making it up is because Joseph Smith is channeling the thoughts of the writers. The engravings on the plates do not translate into the actual Book of Mormon, they are just a catalyst of sorts, symbols to help Joseph Smith channel each individual Book of Mormon scribe.

Remember, the gift of tongues? This is another term for the gift of channeling.

It is actually quite powerful.

~td~

[_DarkHelmet]

I wish Samuel L. Jackson had written it.

I, Samuel L. Jackson, being a bad mother f***er, will write some words and sh*t on these gold plates using a chisel and this big ass mallet.

[_stemelbow]

We have many questions regarding the "translation" process. We have plenty more of what was actually engraved, what it meant, said, and how it translates into english. I suppose that means your concern here somehow proves the Book of Mormon a fraud. I don't know. I suppose this is another case of taking the "since we don't know" route to a critic's advantage.

[_Buffalo]

We have many questions regarding the "translation" process. We have plenty more of what was actually engraved, what it meant, said, and how it translates into english. I suppose that means your concern here somehow proves the Book of Mormon a fraud. I don't know. I suppose this is another case of taking the "since we don't know" route to a critic's advantage.

Let's be honest: the only reason apologists have so many questions about this is because it doesn't match up with Joseph's descriptions of what it was supposed to be.

[_Chap]

We have many questions regarding the "translation" process. We have plenty more of what was actually engraved, what it meant, said, and how it translates into english. I suppose that means your concern here somehow proves the Book of Mormon a fraud. I don't know. I suppose this is another case of taking the "since we don't know" route to a critic's advantage.

But I take it you agree that IF the plates had on them words that were a close equivalent to this (though in some unknown tongue):

This is according to the account of Nephi; or in other words, I, Nephi, wrote this record.

it would be reasonable to be a bit puzzled as why someone doing the laborious job of scratching words on metal would not pause a moment and find an equivalent but more succinct expression (e.g. 'Nephi wrote this') - especially since these were gold plates, so that each word wasted had a substantial cost.

Now you are free to assert that maybe the English of the present Book of Mormon is quite a long way from representing what Nephi actually wrote, and is far from being what you or I would call a translation today. But that is just an assumption you are pulling out of a hat to save the Book of Mormon from the previous difficulty - you have no proof to offer at all. And what is more, by making this assertion you create the immense difficulty that the Book of Mormon as we have it in English may have much less to do with the ancient text than the church has taught.

Either way, the Book of Mormon has real problems.

[_stemelbow]

Let's be honest: the only reason apologists have so many questions about this is because it doesn't match up with Joseph's descriptions of what it was supposed to be.

Let's be more honest, you'll try and spin things to appear as though "apologists" are wrong in their endeavors just because you have been trained by the forces here to be opposed to apologists. But that's cool. In this case, clearly, we only think we know as we assume what is said about it all, but in essence, we don't really know much at all. One symbol could translate into 68 pages of writing for all we know.

[_stemelbow]

But I take it you agree that IF the plates had on them words that were a close equivalent to this (though in some unknown tongue):

This is according to the account of Nephi; or in other words, I, Nephi, wrote this record.

it would be reasonable to be a bit puzzled as why someone doing the laborious job of scratching words on metal would not pause a moment and find an equivalent but more succinct expression (e.g. 'Nephi wrote this') - especially since these were gold plates, so that each word wasted had a substantial cost.

I think you misunderstand my point.

Now you are free to assert that maybe the English of the present Book of Mormon is quite a long way from representing what Nephi actually wrote, and is far from being what you or I would call a translation today. But that is just an assumption you are pulling out of a hat to save the Book of Mormon from the previous difficulty - you have no proof to offer at all. And what is more, by making this assertion you create the immense difficulty that the Book of Mormon as we have it in English may have much less to do with the ancient text than the church has taught.

Either way, the Book of Mormon has real problems.

My idea is as much an assumption as the idea that Nephi's engravings were repetitive unnecessary ineffeciently designed writings. We don't' know that. One of Nephi's characters could represent 68 pages of english writing. We simply don't' know. But the don't know seems to be a convenience for criticism. Its as if "don't know" means we can assume whatever we like about it all and then go with that assumption as though its really how it all went down. I don't see why that's so reasonable.

[_Darth J]

Its as if "don't know" means we can assume whatever we like about it all and then go with that assumption as though its really how it all went down. I don't see why that's so reasonable.

So, like, if someone makes an unsupported, question-begging, ad hoc assertion, we should not confuse such a thing with evidence or a reason to believe a proposition?

Huh.....how about that, stemelbow?