Book of Mormon Transliteration

[_jfro18]

I find myself wondering what font was used for the projection onto the rock. Because it seems the italics used in the KJV Bible were replicated when they were transliterated/content mapped/whatever for Joseph to read...not to mention the matching punctuation...

Yes, this seems like a problem to me and one that a committee would not pass through to Joseph's mind with the same punctuation/emphasis.

[_honorentheos]

The million dollar question is whether or not it is an artifact of the nineteenth century or of an ancient people that had prophets, saw and worshiped Christ, etc.

It is either one or the other. We all use Occam's Razor...

If only there was a more parsimonious explanation for how quotes from the KJV Bible made it into the Book of Mormon besides ghosts and magic rock projection. But I guess we're left with those improbable options since we've excluded any other reasonable explanation.

[_mentalgymnast]

I find myself wondering what font was used for the projection onto the rock. Because it seems the italics used in the KJV Bible were replicated when they were transliterated/content mapped/whatever for Joseph to read...not to mention the matching punctuation...

Two things. Wouldn't one need to go through and look at the punctuation in those blocks of text in the original manuscript and/or printer's manuscript to see whether or not the punctuation does or doesn't mimic the punctuation in the KJV?

Also, is there any disagreement from you to this extract off of the FAIR site?

The difficult financial circumstances of Joseph's family during the Book of Mormon translation are well known.[4] There is no evidence that Joseph owned a Bible during the Book of Mormon translation.[5] In fact, Oliver would later purchase a Bible for Joseph, who used it in producing his revision of the Bible (which became known as the Joseph Smith Translation). This purchase occurred on 8 October 1829, from the same printer that was then setting the type for the already-translated Book of Mormon.[6] Why would Joseph, poor as he was, get a Bible if he already owned one?
https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book ... cs_altered

I think it might take a bit more investigation to determine exactly what was being transcribed from the stone to make your case 'stick'. If Joseph didn't have access to a Bible during the actual 'day to day' translation then it is more than likely the scribe was plugging in punctuation as Joseph was pronouncing the words. I doubt that Joseph was doing 'speech to text' like we do when we text message. Calling out "period"..."comma"..."question mark", etc.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

The million dollar question is whether or not it is an artifact of the nineteenth century or of an ancient people that had prophets, saw and worshiped Christ, etc.

It is either one or the other. We all use Occam's Razor...

If only there was a more parsimonious explanation for how quotes from the KJV Bible made it into the Book of Mormon besides ghosts and magic rock projection. But I guess we're left with those improbable options since we've excluded any other reasonable explanation.

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

[_Gadianton]

Now, whether during the process which I've been 'playing with' during this thread integrates New Testament into the Book of Mormon through prior preparation of the committee before the 'day to day' translation' process or it was 'on the fly' as Joseph's mind was working with and acting as filter/conduit for the delivery of the text...or a combination of the two, who knows?

Indeed, who's to say? there are absolutely no boundaries. Maybe unicorns are pink, or maybe they're blue with white polka dots? Maybe they are both pink and blue with white polka dots -- it's in the eye of the beholder? Each option is as good as any other, as long as unicorns are real.

Anyway, Gadianton, as you know the devil is in the details...or in this case, my argument is that God is in the details

No, I disagree. Your argument is that God is in the general picture, and that the details can be pretty much anything, and nothing about the details can make your God go away.

And there are two sides to take. With God or without God. We are left to choose between the two alternatives, aren't we?

Again, I disagree. The Devil could have been the author of the Book of Mormon or Jizgavom, the jolly space alien from Riom 6 could have been the author. God, the Devil, or Jizgavom could have been the author of Roget's Thesaurus also, and due to an elaborate conspiracy, where we're talking about the transmission of information that far exceeds our computers, the details could have been worked out such that it appears a British doctor was the author.

Just because a person makes a claim about something doesn't impose an existential crisis on the recipient of the claim strictly at that very moment and according to the terms the bearer demands. Why, just this morning, a neighbor of mine told me when he was very ill a number of years ago, he said that his wife demanded he bathe in garlic. At that moment when she made the claim there were to sides that could be taken: bathe in garlic, and be healed, or ignore the counsel and possibly die. Maybe she was wrong, but what if she was right? He was left to choose between the two alternatives.

[_mentalgymnast]

Now, whether during the process which I've been 'playing with' during this thread integrates New Testament into the Book of Mormon through prior preparation of the committee before the 'day to day' translation' process or it was 'on the fly' as Joseph's mind was working with and acting as filter/conduit for the delivery of the text...or a combination of the two, who knows?

Indeed, who's to say? there are absolutely no boundaries. Maybe unicorns are pink, or maybe they're blue with white polka dots? Maybe they are both pink and blue with white polka dots -- it's in the eye of the beholder? Each option is as good as any other, as long as unicorns are real.

I was wondering when unicorns were going to come into the conversation.

I'm not arguing for "no boundaries". What I am saying is that it's sort of up in the air as to what the combination, if indeed there was a combination of factors resulting in the 'point of contact'...that is, Joseph reading the words to a scribe off the seer stone (which, again, may have been a result of what he saw in his 'mind's eye')...might have been as we look at the balance/equilibrium between what was going on on the other side of the veil and the material world as we observe it.

Anyway, Gadianton, as you know the devil is in the details...or in this case, my argument is that God is in the details.

Gadianton: No, I disagree. Your argument is that God is in the general picture, and that the details can be pretty much anything, and nothing about the details can make your God go away.

I am open to the details involving what to us might look like magic. For others, that element (what looks like magic) alone makes "God go away". I do not agree that "the details can be pretty much anything". If one of the details included Joseph sitting on a blue unicorn with white polka dots during the translation process I think that would be reason to give one pause. Because blue unicorns with white polka dots are not real and can be proven not to be real. How many people do you know...that aren't in a special unit in a hospital...that have had personal experience with these 'beings'?

On the other hand it isn't quite as extraordinary to consider the possibility of a creator/God. Can we leave unicorns and spaghetti monsters out of the conversation?

I'm Ok with a seer stone and a hat to keep the light out. No unicorns necessary. My guess is that this element...a 'magic' stone... in the translation process is a deal breaker for you. It seems to be for many. iPhones and speech to text weren't around yet.

And there are two sides to take. With God or without God. We are left to choose between the two alternatives, aren't we?

Again, I disagree. The Devil could have been the author of the Book of Mormon...

I've considered that, but the evidence for the Devil being in the details of the Book of Mormon just doesn't sit right with me. There are too many other 'macro' factors associated with the rise and progress of the CofJCofLDS that I am plain leery/suspect in looking at the Devil as being at the root of all of it. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. You may have your reasons for believing the Devil to be at the foundation of the restoration story and the author of the Book of Mormon. You would be in good company. There are not a few that believe this to be the case.

Most of them, however, being God believers. Go figure.

Regards,
MG

[_canpakes]

Why is Deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon when it was written after Lehi left?

I like Grant Hardy's book, "Understanding the Book of Mormon". In that book, in reference to the Deutero-Isaiah problem, he says:

[we should]...acknowledge that we probably know less about what constitutes an ‘inspired translation’ than we do about Ancient Israel. Once one accepts the possibility of divine intervention, the theology can accommodate the (always tentative) results of scholarship.”

MG, perhaps my simplemindedness is causing me to miss something here, but this sounds suspiciously like a fancier version of saying, "Deutero-Isaiah is in the Book of Mormon because God did that".

This really doesn't explore the actual question.

The Deutero-Isaiah chapters in 1st and 2nd Nephi are an uncomfortable presence, but not an inexplicable one, for, as Hardy affirms, accepting a divine provenance for the Book of Mormon provides the theological basis to resolve difficult historical issues. And we do not have a very good sense of what it means for a prophet to translate sacred texts solely through inspiration–with no training in, or knowledge of, the original language.

Regarding the bolded part: why would anyone translating through the power of God need to know anything about the source language, especially given what you say just a few posts after this one:

I don't think the words were literally 'on the stone'. I would think that the words were projected onto the stone as if it were a screen or sorts.

There is no need for training in, or knowledge of, an original language when one is translating in the method you describe, right?

[_Lemmie]

I am open to the details involving what to us might look like magic. For others, that element (what looks like magic) alone makes "God go away". I do not agree that "the details can be pretty much anything". If one of the details included Joseph sitting on a blue unicorn with white polka dots during the translation process I think that would be reason to give one pause. Because blue unicorns with white polka dots are not real and can be proven not to be real.

How many people do you know...that aren't in a special unit in a hospital...that have had personal experience with these 'beings'?

On the other hand it isn't quite as extraordinary to consider the possibility of a creator/God. Can we leave unicorns and spaghetti monsters out of the conversation?

No, we can't. It's not acceptable for a person to argue that blue unicorns with white polka dots are not real, while simultaneously arguing that they are "open to details" that "look like magic," such as the idea that reading off a "magic" seer stone inside a hat is real.

I'm Ok with a seer stone and a hat to keep the light out. No unicorns necessary. My guess is that this element...a 'magic' stone... in the translation process is a deal breaker for you. It seems to be for many. iPhones and speech to text weren't around yet.

There's the problem. The imaginary elements that fit your story are acceptable to you, but all other imaginary elements are not, which is an irrational position to take. If it works for you on a mystical level then great, but to present it as a logical, rational position is nonsensical.

Just because a person makes a claim about something doesn't impose an existential crisis on the recipient of the claim strictly at that very moment and according to the terms the bearer demands. Why, just this morning, a neighbor of mine told me when he was very ill a number of years ago, he said that his wife demanded he bathe in garlic. At that moment when she made the claim there were to sides that could be taken: bathe in garlic, and be healed, or ignore the counsel and possibly die. Maybe she was wrong, but what if she was right? He was left to choose between the two alternatives.

Great point. Your neighbor is obviously alive, so clearly the garlic healed him, right?!! It's the only possibility (of course assuming only two were possible).

[_Gadianton]

Because blue unicorns with white polka dots are not real

Neither are Cureloms. And had a certain forger been a little more successful, you'd be an advocate for white salamanders:

says dig up the gold but when I take it up the next morning the spirit transfigured himself from a white salamander in the bottom of the hole & struck me 3 times & held the treasure & would not let me

Why didn't the brethren know immediately that they were dealing with fraud, since spirits that transform into white salamanders, like blue unicorns, are not real?

The great secret to figuring out loose/tight translation process is as follows:

if the word or idea or grammar is anachronistic to the times and candidate places for the Book of Mormon, then it's an expansion, where joseph smith conveyed the idea the best he could borrowing from the 19th century. If the word or idea appears to fit within the times and candidate places for the Book of Mormon, or if it is anachronistic to 19th century, then it's a tight translation. If the Book of Mormon had blue unicorns in it, you'd find some way to accept it.

There is nothing perplexing about loose and tight translation for we who assume that the book is a tall tale. Gratuitously nterjecting a few ancient sounding words is a world building exercise and attempt to add mystery. Talking about steel swords and horses isn't a head-scratcher -- I would have made the same ignorant mistake.

You may have your reasons for believing the Devil

I said God, the devil, and Jizgavom the jolly space alien are all equally likely. Meaning: they are all so unlikely it's not worth taking any of them seriously. For the record: I think the possibility that humanity is an alien experiment and that an alien appearing to Joseph Smith as Moroni and establishing Mormonism as a psychological experiment is far more credible than the official version with Gods and angels.

My guess is that this element...a 'magic' stone... in the translation process is a deal breaker for you

LOL! No. The deal breaker is in the very claim that the book is divine. There isn't a conceivable translation scenario that would make it more believable for me.

[_canpakes]

Who or what is actually pulling the symbols from the Gold Plates and turning them into something that can be infused into Joseph Smith's brain?

This.

Who is translating for the translation committee's understanding?