DiscussMormonism.com

Lemmie wrote:Recently, a TBM on this board made a "milk before meat" comment, jokingly saying that "you don't want to scare them away BEFORE they believe!"

This just made me sick to my stomach, because of its implications. Hooking somebody through an emotional sense of belief, all the while knowing that they wouldn't join the LDS church if they really knew what they were doing, is dishonest and manipulative in the extreme. It's inexcusable.

And that's my story too... I did the missionary discussions and was told about the gold plates and the Book of Mormon.

Not until a few years later did I know I had to wear garments everyday, would be a God with my own planet, or about any specifics of polygamy.

And that's why I have a lot of anger/pain about the process... I was too stupid to do the research, but I also had those emotional connections because I trusted what they were telling me was the truth. And that sucks.

jfro18 wrote:

Lemmie wrote:Recently, a TBM on this board made a "milk before meat" comment, jokingly saying that "you don't want to scare them away BEFORE they believe!"

This just made me sick to my stomach, because of its implications. Hooking somebody through an emotional sense of belief, all the while knowing that they wouldn't join the LDS church if they really knew what they were doing, is dishonest and manipulative in the extreme. It's inexcusable.

And that's my story too... I did the missionary discussions and was told about the gold plates and the Book of Mormon.

Not until a few years later did I know I had to wear garments everyday, would be a God with my own planet, or about any specifics of polygamy.

And that's why I have a lot of anger/pain about the process... I was too stupid to do the research, but I also had those emotional connections because I trusted what they were telling me was the truth. And that sucks.

I'm so sorry to hear that, just know that no one thinks you were "too stupid" for not doing research! It's a sneaky, dishonest model they use to baptise people.

During my whole life in the church, Joseph Smith translating the reformed Egyptian from the gold plates was the story. Now, to read that TBMs are arguing that Joseph Smith read early modern English words off of a stone in a hat, interspliced with what is agreed to be KJV plagiarism, is just beyond bizarre.

The stuff I believed in as a TBM and acted on embarrasses me to this day. You are to be commended for doing the research and figuring things out, especially after you were sucked in.

The ‘Moroni promise’ is certainly not very reliable. Only a small percentage of people who have tried it receive a positive confirmation that is sufficiently convincing (especially without being led by a confident believer such as a parent or missionary).

And then only a tiny percentage of those people actually continue on as believers long term.

jfro18 wrote:

I have a question wrote:It was you who introduced the subject of spiritual confirmations in relation to the Book of Mormon, you introduced Moroni’s promise (but got the wording wrong), I was responding to what you posted.

Not just this, but by using spiritual confirmations as your rationale for coming up with these different theories to try and make the language work, it's within the topic given the lengths you're going through with spiritual committees and Moroni's promise.

It's an important conversation although one that we'll never be able to find agreement on.

Majority rules.

Ok then.

Regards,
MG

I have a question wrote:How can adult members now think that a failed treasure seeking rock was the magical projector screen used to display verbatim the Book of Mormon, but that the ancient gold plates that Joseph had to wait four years to receive and the special translating instruments (ancient magic spectacles) that were specifically set aside and hidden along with the gold plates for the purpose of keeping the record safe for over a thousand years and which they previous believed were the devices used, were actually not used?

If a member received a spiritual confirmation of the Book of Mormon based on the understanding that the Book of Mormon was produced by a traditional translation by Joseph using magic ancient spectacles to read the characters on the plates, and they stood up in a testimony meeting and stated they “knew of a surety” Joseph did it that way because they’ve had a spiritual confirmation of that, we’re they lying? Was the spirit lying?

I think that we may want to consider the possibility that the Lord may speak to a man/woman in their own language and according to their own understanding. In this example that you're giving the result is the same. They have a spiritual confirmation of the Book of Mormon.

Regards,
MG

Lemmie wrote: [do] you want people to overlook the logical inconsistencies in your arguments?

No. But remember, I am a person who doesn't always follows the rules of logic. Sometimes I shoot from the hip. So you're going to be busy.

But I'm sure you're up to the task.

Regards,
MG

Themis wrote:[You] still [do] not understanding that I am not saying there are not differences between what you like to call warm fuzzies and other sensory experiences people have. I am asking how you know those sensory experiences cannot be created by the body and how you know they come from an unseen supernatural entity.

You've got me there. But again, I can only speak for myself and the way that I have interpreted/experienced certain phenomena.

Regards,
MG

Lemmie wrote:During my whole life in the church, Joseph Smith translating the reformed Egyptian from the gold plates was the story.

But we have now found out that there is more to the story. But reformed Egyptian hasn't disappeared from the story.

Regards,
MG

MG,

It looks like you went back through and read the comments, and they caused you to reflect a bit, and that's good, MG, but nothing you wrote after that makes a lot of sense to me given those reflections. You seem to understand Moroni is a problematic figure for translation, but you didn't opt to put Brant's argument in your own words, so I'm not sure how well you comprehend the reasons Brant gave for holding off on Moroni. Those reasons are far more important than Moroni himself.

Would you mind doing that now? Would you explain for the class in your own words, why Brant doesn't feel like Moroni is a good fit as a translator?

MG wrote:The whole discussion and the comments seem to parallel a bit some of the thoughts I've expressed somewhat independently during this thread.Joseph didn't do it by himself. Others were involved.

Really? How do you get that from either Clark, the originator of the thread, or from Brant? Remember, it was Clark and Brant who you recommended to us -- so that we could get a good primer and catch up to you.

MG wrote:New Testament in the Book of Mormon seems to have been dovetailed into the text 'on the fly' without use of a Bible on the table.

Nobody made that point in the thread. If you disagree, can you provide a quote? Grant holds the position that the New Testament is used within the Book of Mormon in creative ways, but nowhere did I see a commitment to this being done by a "translation committee" aside from Joseph Smith. In fact, I would bet he, and Brant, and Clark fall somewhere between agnostic on whether the "Bible was on the table" to positive that the "Bible WAS on the table". I would be shocked if either of those three firmly believe that a spirit-world translation committee prepared the KJV passages for Smith to read off the stone.

MG wrote:Again, this causes me to think that much of the preparatory work was done before hand in a creative yet controlled way. The loose part of the translation.

I just don't know what to say, MG. Could you please fulfill my request and repeat Brant's argument against Moroni as translator in your own words? That thread in no way supports your renewed thinking that preparatory work was done before hand by a spirit world translation committee.

If you understand Brant's point, then you should understand why it makes little sense to have anyone fluent in Reformed Egyptian on the translation committee. If you understand Clark's point, in the main post about the KJV already being outdated in English usage by 1611, while in contrast, it's surge in popularity in Smith's day, then you should understand why it makes little sense to argue for the KJV as expansion resource material by a spirit-world committee at all.

I know for a fact as Lemmie reads this, she knows exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not sure you will see the point of this at all, and I will spell it out later for the benefit of you and the lurkers who are skimming along and not following details. I would ask you again to put Brant's argument against Moroni in your own words for us. If you can correctly do so, you will understand what I just wrote.

MG wrote:The work that was prepared beforehand, and then tranliterated through Joseph's brain/mind into his mind's eye which were then transformed into words on a seerstone. At that point things have tightened up.

How about editing this line out of your post? It's sheer nonsense. I edited my misspelling of Brant's name, so I'm not asking you to do something I wouldn't do myself.

Gadianton wrote:Would you explain for the class in your own words, why Brant doesn't feel like Moroni is a good fit as a translator?

What I got out of it was that Moroni wouldn't have let some of the modern references that are anachronistic slip through. He would have used the vernacular matching the time that he lived in rather than letting all of the modern referents slip through. That presents a problem because Moroni, one would assume, would have been directly involved in any sort of translation committee and would seemingly be the one to say, "Stop, you've got that wrong!".

So for this reason Moroni couldn't have been involved in the translation process. Either that, or he took a backseat and let others overwrite/supplant what he would otherwise have written if he was the one putting the words upon the screen.

Regards,
MG