Joseph Smith wrote witnesses statement

[_Chap]

Marg,

Thank you very much for the thoughtful response. I think you have made an excellent argument against my interpretation.

My major issue with your response is that for me all evidence points to one author of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith. I have read most of the arguments for other authors, but none of it sits well with me. As Phil Barlow articulates so well, Smith was already writing in "King James Bible" form by 1828.

I don't think the evidence can replace Smith; for me, the preponderance of the evidence points to Smith.

I'll let Marg respond to this, but you do realize that it was Joseph Smith that did the translation so it would have been in his words and a 19th century production as a result. I really don't understand the expectation that it would be anything other than that. The question is only if it was inspired or not and the Book of Mormon directly addresses that issue.

But the Book of Mormon is not in "his [=Smith's] words", that is, the idiom of 19th century upstate New York.

Instead it is written in a language that I can only describe as a transparently inexpert attempt to imitate the kind of English found in the King James Bible, an attempt made by someone who does not properly understand how the grammar of early 17th century English actually worked.

And as for it being "Joseph Smith that did the translation" - do we have to lay out, yet again, that the earliest accounts of how the text produced do not describe Smith as looking at the Reformed Egyptian text, somehow coming to know its meaning, and hunting for English words to express it, a process that we might have called 'translation', even if we have no idea how Smith came to know that meaning? Instead they describe Smith as having the correct English words revealed to him ready made.

That left no room for Smith's own diction to play a role - and as already pointed out, the text clearly attempts to distance itself from the way Smith and his family actually talked.

[_lulu]

I'll let Marg respond to this, but you do realize that it was Joseph Smith that did the translation so it would have been in his words and a 19th century production as a result. I really don't understand the expectation that it would be anything other than that. The question is only if it was inspired or not and the Book of Mormon directly addresses that issue.

Do you realize that one can read a translation and determine the languages of the original and how many authors there were.

Does that work for the Book of Mormon?

[_why me]

So when a number of them later claimed they only saw the plates spiritually, do you class that as supporting the statement?

I already commented about the spiritual eyes earlier on page two. The witnesses explained their story in many ways but no one ever contradicted the statement in the Book of Mormon. And spiritual eyes would go along with their experiences if one puts all their experiences in one basket: visions, Book of Mormon translation, supernatural powers coming to earth in visions etc. The spiritual eyes comment can be translated as a spiritual experience seen with the eyes.

[_Tobin]

I'll let Marg respond to this, but you do realize that it was Joseph Smith that did the translation so it would have been in his words and a 19th century production as a result. I really don't understand the expectation that it would be anything other than that. The question is only if it was inspired or not and the Book of Mormon directly addresses that issue.

Do you realize that one can read a translation and determine the languages of the original and how many authors there were.
Does that work for the Book of Mormon?

We don't have the original. That would be nice. I wish TSM would ask for the plates back so the LDS Church could do a nice show and tell session on live news.

[Guest]

Instead it is written in a language that I can only describe as a transparently inexpert attempt to imitate the kind of English found in the King James Bible, an attempt made by someone who does not properly understand how the grammar of early 17th century English actually worked.

I didn't know that was a requirement for something to be considered inspired or not. That is a fascinating position to take. So if God spoke to us today, he'd have to use "correct" early 17th century English to speak with us.

And as for it being "Joseph Smith that did the translation" - do we have to lay out, yet again, that the earliest accounts of how the text produced do not describe Smith as looking at the Reformed Egyptian text, somehow coming to know its meaning, and hunting for English words to express it, a process that we might have called 'translation', even if we have no idea how Smith came to know that meaning? Instead they describe Smith as having the correct English words revealed to him ready made.

Again, we don't know how the translation process took place. Joseph Smith did not know the language, so what would be in his own words and what would be genuinely carried over from the original authors words (and meanings) are hard to evaluate.

[_lulu]

I'll let Marg respond to this, but you do realize that it was Joseph Smith that did the translation so it would have been in his words and a 19th century production as a result. I really don't understand the expectation that it would be anything other than that. The question is only if it was inspired or not and the Book of Mormon directly addresses that issue.

Do you realize that one can read a translation and determine the languages of the original and how many authors there were.
Does that work for the Book of Mormon?

We don't have the original. That would be nice. I wish TSM would ask for the plates back so the LDS Church could do a nice show and tell session on live news.

That's not the point. If the Book of Mormon had mulitple authors as is claimed, it would show up in the translation. BYU profs have done word studies that say it does. Skousen says it doesn't.

Criddle says it does, but that those authors are Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon and Solomon Spalding. (I'm still holding out to include Emma in the list).


That's the point.

[_Tobin]

That's not the point. If the Book of Mormon had mulitple authors as is claimed, it would show up in the translation. Skousen says it doesn't.
Criddle says it does, but that those authors are Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon and Solomon Spalding. (I'm still holding out to include Emma in the list).
That's the point.

And you are missing my point. Joseph Smith didn't speak the language (nor know it), so how he translated it, which is really a poor term for it, is very much up in the air. He may very well have seen the events and described it in his own convoluted incorrect 17th century English style. Without the original and knowledge of the process he used, I don't find it a very compelling argument to make that his wording style and the wording style of the Book of Mormon should be different at all.

[_Drifting]

That's not the point. If the Book of Mormon had mulitple authors as is claimed, it would show up in the translation. Skousen says it doesn't.
Criddle says it does, but that those authors are Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon and Solomon Spalding. (I'm still holding out to include Emma in the list).
That's the point.

And you are missing my point. Joseph Smith didn't speak the language (nor know it), so how he translated it, which is really a poor term for it, is very much up in the air. He may very well have seen the events and described it in his own convoluted incorrect 17th century English style. Without the original and knowledge of the process he used, I don't find it a very compelling argument to make that his wording style (and the wording style) of the Book of Mormon should be different at all.

Do you know anything about Mormonism and its origins?
Anything at all?

God gave Joseph the words for the Book of Mormon one at a time.
The Book of Mormon should sound like ancient Hebrews.

[_Tobin]

Do you know anything about Mormonism and its origins?
Anything at all?

God gave Joseph the words for the Book of Mormon one at a time.
The Book of Mormon should sound like ancient Hebrews.

Drifting, and just how many gold books of ancient origin have you translated by the gift and power of God? I think we'd all be very interested in your expertise in this area.

[_Drifting]

Do you know anything about Mormonism and its origins?
Anything at all?

God gave Joseph the words for the Book of Mormon one at a time.
The Book of Mormon should sound like ancient Hebrews.

Drifting, and just how many gold books of ancient origin have you translated by the gift and power of God? I think we'd all be very interested in your expertise in this area.

I reckon about the same number as you.
So, shouldn't the Book of Mormon read like Hebrew given its origin and the exacting method by which it was transcribed?