Book of Mormon Transliteration

[_honorentheos]

honorentheos, what did you think about Nick Frederick's interview with Laura Hales? Are you familiar with his work? He's an ancient scripture professor at BYU.

https://religion.byu.edu/nick_frederick

Regards,
MG

Other than what you shared above, I'm not familiar. However, the idea that the Book of Mormon is a 19th c. response to information in the KJV of the Bible that makes choices about what to change, emphasize or whathaveyou seems to be the sort of thing that sounds mind-blowing to someone whose mind is closed to the idea the Book of Mormon is a product of the 19th c. but otherwise serves no meaningful purpose. It just needs to expand itself to acknowledge ALL of the evidence for 19th c. production and then you'll be somewhere.

I say that recognizing it takes a certain kind of thinking to entertain the idea Smith had to buy a Bible in 1829 because the Smith's didn't own a Bible and also accept he studied it extensively leading to his James 5 epiphany and the first vision...

My opinion on that? Why, thank you for asking. I don't think Smith's familiarity with the KJV matters nearly as much as did Cowdery's.

[_I have a question]

...it takes a certain kind of thinking to entertain the idea Smith had to buy a Bible in 1829 because the Smith's didn't own a Bible and also accept he studied it extensively leading to his James 5 epiphany and the first vision...

Maintaining that Joseph didn’t have access to a KJV Bible, whilst simultaneously promoting that it was his studying of a KJV Bible that prompted the First Vision, is as blatantly intellectually dishonest as it gets.

[_moksha]

Because blue unicorns with white polka dots are not real

Neither are Cureloms.

The world would be a bit emptier without unicorns and cureloms. Our history is enriched by both ancient and modern mythology and having beneficial animals seems great. Just watch the face of a pre-schooler light up when you tell them the Easter Bunny is coming.

[_jfro18]

Anyone who reads this thread that's not a firm believer would think MG is just trolling at this point.

Joseph didn't have a KJV Bible yet had word-for-word KJV passages in the Book of Mormon, even though he was translating off golden plates written before the KJV Bible was created.

Joseph used Deutero-Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon that were written before Lehi left, but it's not a problem because maybe the D-I passages were actually written at the correct time but altered later and so Joseph's brain somehow knew that it would still make sense.

Joseph didn't use the gold plates at all but a stone in a hat, which would be impossible for any of the loose translation stuff to co-exist, but that's OK because a committee actually prepped this stuff so even though a lot of the 19th century stuff is directly from Joseph, it was approved and actually co-opted by a heavenly committee.

And add to all of this, that the caractors off the gold plates Joseph had look like a combo of English characters and a few symbols from his magic parchment... you can't make this work.

[_Shulem]

.

Thank you for posting that. It says everything that needs to be said.

I personally wouldn't waste my time conversing with MG. He's in a state of mind that he wants to be in and it satisfies his dream. No need to wake him up. Let him snooze and do what he wants with his life. Let him live in the delusion that he has chosen for himself.

All we can do is smile, wave, and tip our hats.

Wishing MG well, dream on!

[_Shulem]

The world would be a bit emptier without unicorns and cureloms. Our history is enriched by both ancient and modern mythology and having beneficial animals seems great. Just watch the face of a pre-schooler light up when you tell them the Easter Bunny is coming.

Hi MG, we love you too.

[_mentalgymnast]

Joseph didn't have a KJV Bible yet had word-for-word KJV passages in the Book of Mormon, even though he was translating off golden plates written before the KJV Bible was created.

I am up in the air as to what the role of an actual printed copy of the KJV may or may not have played in the Book of Mormon. Yes, I did post the piece from FAIR. The witness statements seem to show that the KJV wasn't 'on hand' during the day to day translation sessions. I am not convinced, however, that Joseph didn't have access to a Bible before and during the translation period of his life. Obviously the Smith family had access to a Bible during Joseph's formative years.

Joseph used Deutero-Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon that were written before Lehi left, but it's not a problem because maybe the D-I passages were actually written at the correct time but altered later and so Joseph's brain somehow knew that it would still make sense.

Clark Goble is a fairly well respected LDS thinker. As is Kevin Christensen. They have written in regards to the so called Deutero-Isaiah problem.

https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchiv ... index.html

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscr ... 94&index=7

There are some reasonable alternatives other than the 'smoking gun' view.

Joseph didn't use the gold plates at all but a stone in a hat, which would be impossible for any of the loose translation stuff to co-exist, but that's OK because a committee actually prepped this stuff so even though a lot of the 19th century stuff is directly from Joseph, it was approved and actually co-opted by a heavenly committee.

I'm simply bringing up an "expansion of the text' personal view of how we might look a bit more creatively in regards to the Book of Mormon translation. I'm not in any way saying that my meanderings on this thread are 'set in stone', they are merely that...meanderings and thoughts on how the Book of Mormon translation/transliteration may have occurred.

I am presenting my thoughts with the presupposition that God was involved in that process. I don't think it is unreasonable...operating under this assumption...to think that others were involved in that process also...i.e. translation committee. Now, if you take God out of the picture, then yes, you can likewise subscribe to the view that others were involved in the process. That element doesn't change.

Regards,
MG

[_jfro18]

Joseph didn't have a KJV Bible yet had word-for-word KJV passages in the Book of Mormon, even though he was translating off golden plates written before the KJV Bible was created.

I am up in the air as to what the role of an actual printed copy of the KJV may or may not have played in the Book of Mormon. Yes, I did post the piece from FAIR. The witness statements seem to show that the KJV wasn't 'on hand' during the day to day translation sessions. I am not convinced, however, that Joseph didn't have access to a Bible before and during the translation period of his life. Obviously the Smith family had access to a Bible during Joseph's formative years.

You seem to go back and forth on this, tossing out that Joseph didn't have a KJV when it fits and then saying maybe he did when it doesn't. Your arguments are a big bowl of jello, molding to whatever you need to in order to get past one point before flipping on the next.

Joseph used Deutero-Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon that were written before Lehi left, but it's not a problem because maybe the D-I passages were actually written at the correct time but altered later and so Joseph's brain somehow knew that it would still make sense.

Clark Goble is a fairly well respected LDS thinker. As is Kevin Christensen. They have written in regards to the so called Deutero-Isaiah problem.

https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchiv ... index.html

https://publications.mi.BYU.edu/fullscr ... 94&index=7

There are some reasonable alternatives other than the 'smoking gun' view.

There are alternatives but again they can't all fit. For example Clark relies solely on a loose translation of the Book of Mormon in order to make that work, but a loose translation then leaves a ton of other problems with the Book of Mormon unanswers.

That's the problem when you move between a tight and loose translation when there is no evidence to support the idea that Joseph could just move between the two *and* the evidence overwhelmingly points to Joseph and those around him claiming a tight translation.

Joseph didn't use the gold plates at all but a stone in a hat, which would be impossible for any of the loose translation stuff to co-exist, but that's OK because a committee actually prepped this stuff so even though a lot of the 19th century stuff is directly from Joseph, it was approved and actually co-opted by a heavenly committee.

I'm simply bringing up an "expansion of the text' personal view of how we might look a bit more creatively in regards to the Book of Mormon translation. I'm not in any way saying that my meanderings on this thread are 'set in stone', they are merely that...meanderings and thoughts on how the Book of Mormon translation/transliteration may have occurred.

Your arguments aren't set in stone - you've changed them a few times in this thread alone.

When you take a step back and look at the leaps you have to make on each of these points just to get into the realm of it even being possible... you can see how flawed your position is.

I'm not trying to be mean - I've heard others make these kinds of arguments before and then when they're presented with the counter they move the goalposts again or flip to loose translation vs tight.

The "caractors" that Joseph wrote alone prove this is just nonsensical. The that an ancient race of people (who left no evidence) just happened to use a language that so closely mirrors the English language is just laughable. Go from there and it only gets worse.

[_Lemmie]

Joseph didn't have a KJV Bible yet had word-for-word KJV passages in the Book of Mormon, even though he was translating off golden plates written before the KJV Bible was created.

I am up in the air as to what the role of an actual printed copy of the KJV may or may not have played in the Book of Mormon. Yes, I did post the piece from FAIR. The witness statements seem to show that the KJV wasn't 'on hand' during the day to day translation sessions. I am not convinced, however, that Joseph didn't have access to a Bible before and during the translation period of his life. Obviously the Smith family had access to a Bible during Joseph's formative years.

Joseph used Deutero-Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon that were written before Lehi left, but it's not a problem because maybe the D-I passages were actually written at the correct time but altered later and so Joseph's brain somehow knew that it would still make sense.

Clark Goble is a fairly well respected LDS thinker. As is Kevin Christensen. They have written in regards to the so called Deutero-Isaiah problem.

https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchiv ... index.html

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscr ... 94&index=7

There are some reasonable alternatives other than the 'smoking gun' view.

Neither piece refutes jfro18's point. Here is the first line of Clark's blog entry:

Several parts of the Book of Mormon are highly influenced by the text of deutero-Isaiah.

And Kevin's piece was written in 2001, here's a sentence from his conclusion:

Despite the current irresolution of the Isaiah situation...

I am presenting my thoughts with the presupposition that God was involved in that process. I don't think it is unreasonable...operating under this assumption...to think that others were involved in that process also...i.e. translation committee.

If you assume an initial condition where supernatural entities are involved, then no, it is no surprise that you conclude that supernatural entities are involved. Operating under an initial condition that assumes your conclusion is not a reasonable method.

Now, if you take God out of the picture, then yes, you can likewise subscribe to the view that others were involved in the process. That element doesn't change.

Actually, that is incorrect. It does not require an initial condition that god did NOT assist in order to consider possible variations on how something was done. The point is that in conclusion, after evaluating the evidence, the idea of a supernatural being cannot be supported as the most likely, logical, or even remotely possible explanation.

[_jfro18]

Clark Goble is a fairly well respected LDS thinker. As is Kevin Christensen. They have written in regards to the so called Deutero-Isaiah problem.

https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchiv ... index.html

https://publications.mi.BYU.edu/fullscr ... 94&index=7

There are some reasonable alternatives other than the 'smoking gun' view.

Neither piece refutes jfro18's point. Here is the first line of Clark's blog entry:

Several parts of the Book of Mormon are highly influenced by the text of deutero-Isaiah.

And Kevin's piece was written in 2001, here's a sentence from his conclusion:

Despite the current irresolution of the Isaiah situation...

It addresses Deutero-Isaiah in the sense that they try to make sense of it by saying that Joseph didn't use some of the most obvious elements of why it was a second author, but they still admit that Joseph did leave some troubling information in there.

I would recommend that anyone interested in the Deutero-Isaiah issue listen to David Bokovoy talk about it on Mormon Stories -- it's not in-depth since it's a small part of a big conversation, but highlights how Deutero-Isaiah is in the Book of Mormon just beyond the Isaiah chapters.

You can listen to that here: https://youtu.be/b1POI78k60o?t=1380 -- I believe it should start up right at the Deutero-Isiah part about 23 minutes in.