Book of Mormon...a common thread?

[_Fortigurn]

The Book of Mormon is an allegory, a sacred story, whose meaning is not dependent on any connection to actual history. To the extent that the Book of Mormon allegory reflects the dynamics of life, it is as true is it needs to be.

Attacking the Book of Mormon for its lack of evidence is like questioning Aesop's Fables.

Unfortunately the Book of Mormon does not describe itself in this way, and neither does the LDS church describe it in this way.

[_Fortigurn]

MG: There were witnesses to the plates.

I wasn't talking about witnesses to the existence of the plates. I was talking about witnesses to a process by which the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates.

Why is/was it necessary to have the plates "in house" or on site for the translation to be from the plates?

Traditionally (and, I believe, currently), the term 'translation' means reading one text and rendering it in another language. This is not the process described for the 'translation' of the Book of Mormon from the golden plates.

[_mentalgymnast]

I wasn't talking about witnesses to the existence of the plates. I was talking about witnesses to a process by which the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates.

MG: I know.

Why is/was it necessary to have the plates "in house" or on site for the translation to be from the plates?

Traditionally (and, I believe, currently), the term 'translation' means reading one text and rendering it in another language. This is not the process described for the 'translation' of the Book of Mormon from the golden plates.

MG: would you like to review the process for us if you believe that it may help?

Again, Why is/was it necessary to have the plates "in house" or on site for the translation to be from the plates?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

The Book of Mormon is an allegory, a sacred story, whose meaning is not dependent on any connection to actual history. To the extent that the Book of Mormon allegory reflects the dynamics of life, it is as true is it needs to be.

Attacking the Book of Mormon for its lack of evidence is like questioning Aesop's Fables.

Unfortunately the Book of Mormon does not describe itself in this way, and neither does the LDS church describe it in this way.

MG: true enough.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I'm still not sure why it's dogmatic to admit to myself that I have indeed reached some conclusions.

MG: a man by the name of Rajesh Setty said this: "Reaching conclusions without the right set of data and criteria is both easy and stupid."

We all are susceptible of doing this. How can one be sure that the right set of data, in its completeness/entirety, is being accessed? Being dogmatic is having reached conclusions that one believes are infallible. Have you done so in some instances?

Is this wise?

Regards,
MG

[_Fortigurn]

MG: would you like to review the process for us if you believe that it may help?

Sure:

* According to one account, Smith looked at the plates through a pair spectacles which rendered the text on the plates into English, which he then dictated to a scribe

* According to other accounts, Smith had the plates in the house but covered up, and sat with his head face down in a hat, looking at a small stone on which one English word would appear at a time, which he would then read to a scribe

* According to other accounts, Smith had the plates in the house but covered up, and sat with his head face down in a hat, looking at a small stone on which the original text of the plates would appear, with English underneath, and he would read the English to a scribe

* According to other accounts, Smith didn't even have the plates in the house, and sat with his head face down in a hat, looking at a small stone on which the original text of the plates would appear, with English underneath, or else only English, either one word at a time or several words at once (accounts differ), and he would read the English to a scribe

None of these describe a process of translation. All of them describe a process of Smith reading English and dictating the English to a scribe.

Again, Why is/was it necessary to have the plates "in house" or on site for the translation to be from the plates?

Because translation requires reading one text and rendering it in another language. This is not the process described for the 'translation' of the Book of Mormon from the golden plates.

[_beastie]

The truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is a separate issue from whether or not the church is the "one true church" with the restored priesthood authority. Joseph Smith' role in translating the Book of Mormon is a separate issue from his later roles, such as establishing the church. I have frequently pointed out the serious nature of this alteration in "revelation":

Original 1833 Book of Commandments

BC 4:2, p. 10 — and he has a gift to translate the book [of Mormon], and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift.

Altered to:

D&C 5:4 — And you have a gift to translate the plates; [and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you;] and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift [until my purpose is fulfilled in this;] for I will grant unto you no other gift [until it is finished].

As a 19 year old investigator, I instinctively understood that these were two distinct issues. Apparently the church recognizes this as well when it encourages investigators to not only pray about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon but to pray about Joseph Smith as a true prophet. Many of you know my history in that, as an investigator, I received a strong "yes" to my prayer about the Book of Mormon, but never could get a "yes" answer to Joseph Smith being a prophet in general, or the church being the "one true church", or the church having the real priesthood authority of JC.

Not only is it logical to separate the two issues, but obviously whoever wrote the D&C separated the two issues, hence, the necessary alteration. Saying Joseph Smith would have no other gift other than to translate the Book of Mormon negates later claims, including the priesthood restoration and restoring the "true" church. That wasn't his mission. His mission was to translate the Book of Mormon, according to the original "revelation".

MG -

I visited the site you linked. The problem that I see is that, unless I Overlooked it, most of the site is dedicated to the types of proof that people on MAD are so fond of - the connections with the Old World - the Hebrew connections. The reason I find all of that uninteresting and nonpersuasive is because, from what I've read, it would be possible for a nineteenth century person to make these connections if they had certain background information. These arguments depend upon insisting Joseph Smith was the sole author, and insisting he was too ignorant of a person to possess any of this background information. Of course I haven't read ALL of these arguments, due to my lack of interest, but this appears to be the backbone of the ones I've read.

To me, the historical truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is entirely dependent on finding a reasonable location for its events in the New World. And that happens to be the most difficult problem facing the historicity of the Book of Mormon. The current "fad" is, of course, Mesaomerica - but the cruel reality is that no empire as described in the Book of Mormon, anachronisms aside, existed in Mesoamerica at that time period. Brant Gardner attempts to deal with this problem by interpreting the Book of Mormon in a strained manner.

I analyzed this problem in detail in this essay:

http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/wiki/ind ... _and_Power

[_Jason Bourne]

1 way the LDS church doesn't 'rise' if the Book of Mormon is true: Even if the Book of Mormon is true - how does that say anything about the LDS church. There are plenty of other groups out there who use the Book of Mormon. How do you know they're not the real church?

That's just what I was going to say. If we accept the Book of Mormon as "true" in a way that makes Joseph Smith a prophet, all that does is move the front line of battle one step beyond the Book of Mormon and into the next of Joseph Smith's bizzare-o claims: priesthood restoration. He could have become a fallen prophet any time after the Book of Mormon was written, so none of his other claims become true just because we accept the Book of Mormon as true. If we decide that he didn't fall away, it can certainly be argued that the modern LDS church has fallen away at some point, leaving the RLDS, the CoC, some FLDS sect -- or none of them -- as the so-called true church that can rightly claim 10% of your income and much of your free time.

I think David Whitmer's point was just that. That the Book of Mormon was true and what was claimed, Joseph Smith did translate it by the power of God but Joseph Smith got carried away and was a fallen prophet.

[_truth dancer]

Hmmm so would it be more accurate to say the Holy Ghost translated the plates, or the seer stone translated the plates into English and Joseph Smith read the translation to his scribe?

:-)

~dancer~

[_Fortigurn]

Hmmm so would it be more accurate to say the Holy Ghost translated the plates, or the seer stone translated the plates into English and Joseph Smith read the translation to his scribe?

It would be more accurate to say that Smith allegedly received a revelation in English, and that it was not possible to verify whether or not the revelation contained what was written on the plates, since no one (including Smith), could read the plates.

None of the eye witnesses describe a process of translation, or even a process of verifiable revelation, so there is no evidence that what was dictated is what was on the plates. Not only that, but since the text on the plates was never read, they immediately become irrelevant to the Book of Mormon, and we must necessarily look elsewhere for the source of the Book of Mormon. You will find that LDS apologists struggle over this issue, and some disagree with others (I have seen about three different solutions suggested).