Book of Mormon Transliteration

[_mentalgymnast]

Incorrect, on both counts.

Have it your way. Not worth the quibble.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

The tangled spaghetti of sophistry required to prop up the Book of Mormon is pretty amazing. I find the psychology of belief to be fascinating. What would ever motivate someone to construct this Rube Goldberg machine of faith?

I simply can't fathom it. I'm just not made that way.

Well, fortunately for you others are. And you benefit from it in one way or the other.

Some folks find it sort of fun to work out and do some heavy lifting and gymnastics to hone up the old muscles. Otherwise atrophy can set in.

Regards,
MG

[_jfro18]

Faith is believing in what we can't see or what we can't know. It's not about believing in spite of what we know and in spite of what we can see.

Not quite.

Alma 32:
21 And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

What we can't see or can't know, but most importantly have "hope" in is not worth the time or effort. But a perfect knowledge is not required. Hope can act as a buffer against what is not completely 'seen' or 'known'.

That quote is basically making my point - that if you don't have a perfect knowledge of things, but have believe they are true... that's faith.

But that's *not* saying to ignore what you do know.

I know it's been pointed out before, but it's like having a crime scene where EVERYTHING points to a suspect being guilty, and then sitting there going "Yeah but if you just imagine that he wasn't at the crime scene but at a nursing home singing to the elderly then you can understand why he didn't do it."

...you can't just piece together a theory by carefully dancing around the landmines that were put in place by the very people who were a part of the process itself.

What are the landmines?

That they said Joseph would read the words off the stone and they wouldn't change until written perfectly does not allow for the KJV problems. That Emma said he even knew it spelling was wrong does not allow for him to just be winging it in a loose translation.

We're going in circles here... you claim that I am not looking through the eyes of faith, but in reality if it was anything but a religion you have an inherent bias to defend you'd be shocked at the absurdity of your theories here too.

[_Themis]

Granted, it is speculation...but to me it makes more sense than what I've been hearing from the critics over the years.

I'm curious what the critics have said that doesn't make sense?

[_Lemmie]

Granted, it is speculation...but to me it makes more sense than what I've been hearing from the critics over the years.

I'm curious what the critics have said that doesn't make sense?

Or how the speculation in this thread makes sense, for that matter.

What I find interesting is how fragmented and disparate the various explanations are. The things "known by faith" are inconsistent with each other, which doesn't seem possible, if knowing by faith really works the way it's supposed to.

[Guest]

Granted, it is speculation...but to me it makes more sense than what I've been hearing from the critics over the years.

I'm curious what the critics have said that doesn't make sense?

For many years starting with publication of the Book of Mormon, and beginning with Abner Cole, Alexander Campbell, and Eber D. Howe, we've seen three ongoing foundational arguments that have directly impacted the way critics view the Book of Mormon. They continue on to this day:

1. That the heavens are closed and that there is no revelation from God in our day. The canon is closed. Thus, a translation through any means is unnecessary and isn't to be expected in our day.

2. Joseph Smith was a scheming scoundrel out to defraud. This being the case, there is no scenario under which one might accept the Book of Mormon as being part of God's work in the latter days. So again, the translation process really doesn't matter because it's bogus at the outset.

3. The Book of Mormon is beyond Joseph Smith's genius so another explanation must be given. Oliver Cowdery. Solomon Spaulding...but not God. Again, God doesn't speak in our day through prophets.

Every other explanation is 'game on'. Including unicorns with polka dots and spaghetti monsters.

The critics over and over again simplify everything into one or more of these three arguments against any kind of translation scenario. So it doesn't matter whether it's loose or tight. It doesn't matter whether Joseph used a stone or a hat. These are just arguments that are used to support the three baseline arguments that have been there since the inception/beginning of the restoration.

So in a way, this thread is predetermined in its outcome. There are not any critics who don't subscribe to one or more of the three arguments I've listed. Everything else is pretty much window dressing or fluff to cover for the fact that one or more of these arguments is the root cause of non acceptance of the Book of Mormon.

Any type of translation scenario is DOA.

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

Lemmie,

Does Carmack think the kjv got in the Book of Mormon because Joseph Smith picked up a Bible and put it there or because the translation committee in the spirit world borrowed from the kjv, and that went directly to the stone?

I will have to confirm this, but to the best of my understanding, when he evaluates the Book of Mormon "text," as translated by Joseph Smith, for example to compare to other pseudo-biblical writings, or to compare to the KJV itself, he removes a set of words that are already noted as being from the KJV.

I took that as a tacit admission that the removed words were NOT received from God through the seer stone. If they did come through the stone, then it's inappropriate to remove them from the set of words being evaluated for Early Modern English content coming through the process.

Let me see if I can confirm if my assumption is correct.

ETA: I can't find my notes on that, so at the moment i would have to say Carmack thinks the kjv direct quotes came to Joseph Smith through the stone, along with everything else.

Hi Gadianton,

I'm just following up on this question again, I found the quote that had led me to believe Carmack removed the KJV quotations from his analysis.

This is from Carmack's review of Bowen's dissertation, "Sounding Sacred, The adoption of biblical archaisms in the Book of Mormon and other 19th century texts (Dissertation, Purdue University, Dec 2016)" :

Also, for his grammatical analysis of Book of Mormon language, Bowen examined only 1st Nephi, amounting to a sample size of 25,122 words (see page 68). Both of these were ill-advised moves. Given the varied nature of the text, it would have been better to have included almost all of it, excluding only the lengthy biblical quotations.

This gave me the impression Carmack excluded biblical quotations also. I'll see if i can specifically confirm one way or the other.

[_honorentheos]

MG

I never see you taking on the fact the Book of Mormon claimed to be history, and on every front imaginable that claim has been discredited. While the work to contextualize it's view of the world points adamantly towards it being composed by a person living in the United States in the early 19th c.

But let's say there is a God. And let's suppose said God set Joseph on the path to put out a book like the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon. What precludes Smith having let the influence it provided him corrupt him? He was told he should not pretend to any other gift but translation. Then he went back and changed the text say God changed his mind. He changed the books theology in 1837, he went on to practise polygamy (behind his wife's back) despite what the Book of Mormon has to say on the subject. He defrauded people of their money in Kirkland then led a coup against the leadership in Missouri that irrevocably changed the religion you know today as Mormonism.

It seems a good argument against Smith remaining faithful follows from the evidence if one initially demands one accept there is a God that inspired the writing of the he Book of Mormon.

[_jfro18]

1. That the heavens are closed and that there is no revelation from God in our day. The canon is closed. Thus, a translation through any means is unnecessary and isn't to be expected in our day.

2. Joseph Smith was a scheming scoundrel out to defraud. This being the case, there is no scenario under which one might accept the Book of Mormon as being part of God's work in the latter days. So again, the translation process really doesn't matter because it's bogus at the outset.

3. The Book of Mormon is beyond Joseph Smith's genius so another explanation must be given. Oliver Cowdery. Solomon Spaulding...but not God. Again, God doesn't speak in our day through prophets.

Every other explanation is 'game on'. Including unicorns with polka dots and spaghetti monsters.

The critics over and over again simplify everything into one or more of these three arguments against any kind of translation scenario. So it doesn't matter whether it's loose or tight. It doesn't matter whether Joseph used a stone or a hat. These are just arguments that are used to support the three baseline arguments that have been there since the inception/beginning of the restoration.

Most critics of the Mormon church today do not use #1 because it's a lot easier to address Joseph's works than it is to make the assumption that God is done giving humans direction. While that might have been a big argument during Joseph's life for obvious reasons, I can't remember seeing any modern critic make that point.

The reason people use #2 is because it fits. Joseph Smith used the same stone to defraud people through treasure digging as he used to 'translate' a book from God. While Bushman claimed maybe that was God's way of preparing Joseph, the fact that Joseph never found treasure does not speak well to that theory. We're looking for the overall pattern to try an see what theory works and what doesn't, and Joseph's life before the Book of Mormon was printed (and after since we see Joseph continually seeking $ whether it's Salem, Kirtland anti-bank, or united order)

And #3 is another one you don't see often at least around here. The Book of Mormon is not that complex or advanced in a literary sense. Joseph didn't need to weave in back storylines, because once people died they were pretty much forgotten as he moved to the next.

I would make the argument that what you're doing here is the same thing that Spaulding theory people do on the other side -- complicating things so much as to make it plausible, when the most obvious answers are literally right in front of you and don't require the massive twisting.

I mentioned it earlier, but you have to consider the following points with the translation and Joseph's gift:

1. Why do the 'caractors' off the gold plates look like English? I had the images on another page - it's undeniable.

2. Why did Joseph claim Native Americans were ancestors of the Lamanites both in the Book of Mormon and in revelations from God when DNA makes it clear they are not.

3. Why is there no evidence to show that the Book of Mormon people even lived - no survival of language, customs, evidence, armor, or even DNA in this area? Why did the committee you speak of put so many anachronisms in there if they were preparing this to be accepted by Americans?

4. Why did Joseph use King James language and Deutero-Isaiah if a tight translation, and why did he use them in a loose translation "out of convenience" if the Bible had been corrupted?

5. Why were there gold plates at all if Joseph didn't even have them near him, let alone use them?

6. Why couldn't Joseph reproduce the Lost 116 pages if it was a legit translation? Why should we believe God created a second set of plates because he knew Joseph would lose those exact pages yet God did not make such contingency plans for the other mistakes the church has made since?

I could go on, but I think you get the point. The translation itself it part of a bigger problem with Joseph Smith and no matter how much you try to wiggle around the method of translation, all of these other problems remain and continue to poke holes in your theories.

[_Themis]

1. That the heavens are closed and that there is no revelation from God in our day. The canon is closed. Thus, a translation through any means is unnecessary and isn't to be expected in our day.

That is a Christian criticism with people who believe the Bible is all there is, but not a criticism you see from anyone else or most here.

2. Joseph Smith was a scheming scoundrel out to defraud. This being the case, there is no scenario under which one might accept the Book of Mormon as being part of God's work in the latter days. So again, the translation process really doesn't matter because it's bogus at the outset.

That is over simplified criticism to avoid valid criticisms related to fraudulent behavior. I don't think most look at one thing not related to Joseph's Mormonism claims and concludes this though. They look at his Mormonism claims and see if the evidence fits. Something you do all the time in other areas of your life.

3. The Book of Mormon is beyond Joseph Smith's genius so another explanation must be given. Oliver Cowdery. Solomon Spaulding...but not God. Again, God doesn't speak in our day through prophets.

I think you find only Bible thumping Christians who would think it beyond Joseph's ability and not be willing to look at divine claims. It's really just a rehash of #1 above.

The critics over and over again simplify everything into one or more of these three arguments against any kind of translation scenario. So it doesn't matter whether it's loose or tight. It doesn't matter whether Joseph used a stone or a hat. These are just arguments that are used to support the three baseline arguments that have been there since the inception/beginning of the restoration.

The main criticisms of Joseph's religious truth claims don't fit in any of the 3 you listed. Criticisms like anachronisms or the papyri does not say what Joseph claimed it said. Or criticisms that the DNA science does not support a historical Book of Mormon people.

So in a way, this thread is predetermined in its outcome. There are not any critics who don't subscribe to one or more of the three arguments I've listed. Everything else is pretty much window dressing or fluff to cover for the fact that one or more of these arguments is the root cause of non acceptance of the Book of Mormon.

????? Most of the criticisms you have received here do not fit in any of the three. Many have bent over backwards to try and help you figure out a plausible scenario of translation that makes everything work. They have failed just as you have.

The one thing that does work is Joseph made it up. So it is reasonable for people to think something is man made if the simplest explanation is man made it up. Can you think of anything that does not fit into Joseph made it up?