Moroni quotes a scribal forgery

[_Buffalo]

This seems to be at odds with first hand descriptions of the process. It literally could not continue unless it was written exactly as shown in the stones. Apparently God thought the actual wording was important.

I don't see how it would be at odds at all. As a side note, I don't recall anything about the witnesses saying each and every word had to be written correctly before it could move forward.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

This seems to be at odds with first hand descriptions of the process. It literally could not continue unless it was written exactly as shown in the stones. Apparently God thought the actual wording was important.

I would also add: what reason do you have to think that the process was different when the scribes weren't paying attention?

[_stemelbow]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

This seems to be at odds with first hand descriptions of the process. It literally could not continue unless it was written exactly as shown in the stones. Apparently God thought the actual wording was important.

I would also add: what reason do you have to think that the process was different when the scribes weren't paying attention?

As I said, I don't see how its at odds at all. And, I have no idea what your question here is saying. I don't think I've ever hinted at such a notion.

[_Buffalo]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

This seems to be at odds with first hand descriptions of the process. It literally could not continue unless it was written exactly as shown in the stones. Apparently God thought the actual wording was important.

I would also add: what reason do you have to think that the process was different when the scribes weren't paying attention?

As I said, I don't see how its at odds at all. And, I have no idea what your question here is saying. I don't think I've ever hinted at such a notion.

Let's summarize. According to the scribes, Joseph was NOT able to continue with the translation until the message in the rock in the hat was written down EXACTLY. Joseph didn't invent the text - it was given to him in the rock.

But, you think the exact wording isn't important, and support a loose translation.

1. What makes you think there was a loose translation? What are you basing that on?
2. Why would a loose translation EXACTLY match a piece of forged scripture? That doesn't seem loose at all. And if it was loose, it could have been put many different ways. Why copy something from Mark that Mark didn't write?

[_stemelbow]

Let's summarize. According to the scribes, Joseph was NOT able to continue with the translation until the message in the rock in the hat was written down EXACTLY. Joseph didn't invent the text - it was given to him in the rock.

But, you think the exact wording isn't important, and support a loose translation.

1. What makes you think there was a loose translation? What are you basing that on?

All translation are in effect a loose translation. The words or characters written by Moroni did not equate to a one to one match to what Joseph spoke to his scribes. I just don't think that feasible.

2. Why would a loose translation EXACTLY match a piece of forged scripture? That doesn't seem loose at all. And if it was loose, it could have been put many different ways. Why copy something from Mark that Mark didn't write?

I've already, clearly, given you a distinct possibility in answering this Buffalo. God could very well have used the same words found in the KJV, knowing full well that the message was consistent with the message as written by Moroni. Thus, God gave Joseph the same words to tell His scribe.

[_Buffalo]

All translation are in effect a loose translation. The words or characters written by Moroni did not equate to a one to one match to what Joseph spoke to his scribes. I just don't think that feasible.

Even if it's God and not a fallible human doing the translation? And again, why does loose translation mean here "exact copy of a spurious passage from Mark"? In any case, a loose translation from a fallible human is not possible here. Is God fallible?

I've already, clearly, given you a distinct possibility in answering this Buffalo. God could very well have used the same words found in the KJV, knowing full well that the message was consistent with the message as written by Moroni. Thus, God gave Joseph the same words to tell His scribe.

Again, how does "loose translation" become "exactly copy of a spurious passage from Mark"?

[_just me]

The passage quoted is not original to the New Testament text. It was added later by a different scribe. a.k.a. a forgery

I'm not sure how that argues against my take on it.

I didn't see you address this aspect so I wasn't sure if you really understood the problem. I was trying to clarify the issue.

Was the scribe inspired by God to add to the Mark text? Why didn't the original author get inspired to write it down in the first place since it is clearly such an important gospel truth?

The scribe need not be inspired to write a true piece. In effect in the scribes day there was a reliance on oral tradition. Who knows where it came from? And perhaps it was already written somewhere.

Do you really mean "who knows where it came from?" Earlier you were calling it a true principle. Why would God have Joseph use some random scribe added piece of oral tradition?

Why does the church teach that is was wicked scribes that altered the Bible if it now appears they were actually inspired by God to make the changes they made?

Why the need to be so black and white?

This is what I was taught in the LDS church for 34 years. Could you find me a reference that indicates some of the scribe additions and subtractions were inspired by God? I am unaware of any. Are there any that indicate the scribe errors/additions/subtractions were benign?

[_KimberlyAnn]

So God quoted what He knew to be a forgery to Joseph Smith and passed if off as scripture? God also knew the passage would eventually be exposed as fraudulent, but quoted it anyway, even though He could foresee the trouble it would cause His church? That's like God quoting Hofmann forgeries to Pres. Kimball and calling them scripture! Good grief, that's absurd.

God also was so concerned with the correct word-for-word translation of the Bible that He initiated the JST. To Matthew 6.1, Smith added "And it came to pass that, as Jesus taught his disciples, he said unto them...." That tidbit adds nothing to the passage except unnecessary verbiage. It is the same with numerous passages in the JST. God was apparently interested in a tight translation of the Bible to be concerned with such minutia, but He wasn't concerned with a tight translation of the Book of Mormon. He was more interested in a general theme rather than textual accuracy. I see.

Funny that God didn't point out the fraudulent nature of portions of Mark 16 to Joseph Smith. It's understandable, though, since He'd just passed it off as scripture Himself!

KA

[_just me]

I <3 KimberlyAnn

[_jon]

I'm not seeing any refutation of the two main challenges of the OP.

1. That Nephi quoted something that was only written after he was dead.
2. That Moroni quoted a passage that wasn't written until after he was dead and that was a fraud.

Please can someone expand a bit on the passage in Mark that is claimed was not written by the author of Mark and was inserted after?
(I haven't heard of this one before)

Thanks

[_stemelbow]

Again, how does "loose translation" become "exactly copy of a spurious passage from Mark"?

Hey Buffalo, I"m not sure what else you're looking for. You think since the passage in question was something that was "forged" it couldn't have been written by Moroni. I say, "cool. There is possibility that it wasn't written as represented in English, per se." You then repeat your claim implying "it seems that there is no way God would have used a common scripture in Joseph Smith' time as a replacement for the words of Moroni". I say, "I think God would use commonly known scripture, particularly if that scripture represented the exact thought He had in mind". You seem to dislike my reply and wish for me to repeat my argument, time and time again. I don't see the point.

The reason, which is a legitimate one in my mind, that the passage from Mark is found in the Book of Mormon is that God Himself used the KJV rendition of a common passage of scripture which taught a true principle. I know you don't like that explanation. It seems your questions will repeat and repeat because you don't like the explanation. I see the explanation as completely reasonable.