LDS.org posts Book of Mormon translation that opposes Peterson's PBS one

[_collegeterrace]

More from the online scripture stories at LDS.org, under How we got the Book of Mormon in the Book of Mormon stories section, we see what LDS Inc is teaching the kiddies concerning the translation method of the plates:

Scribes helped Joseph by writing the words as he translated them from the gold plates.

Why would LDS Inc teach two different theories? Or was Dr. Daniel C. Peterson speaking his own opinion and not in an official capacity as a spokesman for LDS Inc during the PBS special "The Mormons", where he said Joseph translated the plates with a magic glowing rock inside of a hat?
.
.
.

[_harmony]

Why would LDS Inc teach two different theories? Or was Dr. Daniel C. Peterson speaking his own opinion and not in an official capacity as a spokesman for LDS Inc during the PBS special "The Mormons", where he said Joseph translated the plates with a magic glowing rock inside of a hat?
.
.
.

Don't blame Daniel for the lies the church tells.

[_collegeterrace]

Why would LDS Inc teach two different theories? Or was Dr. Daniel C. Peterson speaking his own opinion and not in an official capacity as a spokesman for LDS Inc during the PBS special "The Mormons", where he said Joseph translated the plates with a magic glowing rock inside of a hat?
.
.
.

Don't blame Daniel for the lies the church tells.

Thanks reply harmony, may I ask how do you think the plates were translated?

That is IF you believe there were plates..

[_LifeOnaPlate]

The plates apparently were present sometimes, covered other times, apparently in a separate location other times. There were stones in spectacles and stones in hats. The translation process was not a simple and uniform method according to the sources we have. The art you show doesn't appear to be based on anything more than an artists imagination. (Now that I used the word "imagination" anyone can feel free to make a crack at the Book of Mormon based on that word, etc.)

[_harmony]

Thanks reply harmony, may I ask how do you think the plates were translated?

That is IF you believe there were plates..

I think there were plates. I just don't think they were ever buried, made of gold, or required translation.

[_collegeterrace]

Thanks reply harmony, may I ask how do you think the plates were translated?

That is IF you believe there were plates..

I think there were plates. I just don't think they were ever buried, made of gold, or required translation.

Excellent!

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think there were plates. I just don't think they were ever buried, made of gold, or required translation.

Have you ever read Richard Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses?

Great book.

[_moksha]

I think there were plates. I just don't think they were ever buried, made of gold, or required translation.

Have you ever read Richard Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses?

Great book.

I haven't read it. Is it for or against the witnesses?

[_Dwight Frye]

Don't blame Daniel for the lies the church tells.

Indeed. Professor Peterson has done an admirable job in trying to set the record straight:

The Brigham Young University professor of Islamic studies and Arabic also sought to dispel some of the myths* surrounding the Prophet's translation of the scripture.

Peterson said the Book of Mormon was revealed to Smith through a seer stone. Smith never went through the golden pages of the ancient record, but instead put the seer stone in a hat, then buried his head in the hat to shut out ambient light.

- "Joseph Smith translated by revelation, professor says", Deseret News, Apr. 11, 2008

* It's a shame some of these myths are perpetuated by the Church itself, particularly by the inaccurate artwork it uses.

[_harmony]

I think there were plates. I just don't think they were ever buried, made of gold, or required translation.

Have you ever read Richard Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses?

Great book.

Another Mormon doesn't agree with your assessment of the book, Daniel:

Customer Review

This author wants to have his cake AND eat it too!!!, September 5, 2008
By Matthew Bryde

First, to say something positive, this book is one of the rare few books one can purchase that specifically discusses in detail the lives of the Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, and not a broader history of the Mormon Church. As such, it does a reasonable job.

However, having read many books on church history, this book is one of the most blatantly biased books I have read. As a Mormon, I obviously have no problem with the beliefs of the author, but I do have a low tolerance of historical accounts biased by an author's personal beliefs. This book is entirely agenda driven, and I really struggled to get to the end.

A common occurrence throughout the book is whenever the author quotes a source unfavourable to his beliefs he quotes only the part that he agrees with, using favourable adjectives, but then in the footnotes will state the rest of what the quoted source had to say could not possibly be believed, with negative adjectives used to back his personal beliefs/agenda:

e.g. "irresponsible rumour", "irregular statements", "undoubtedly bends words", "convenient revelation"

Some other examples of the subjective commentary:

p33, footnote #15: "Martin Harris seems responsibly reported by Tiffany, with the exception of..."
p57: Oliver Cowdery "logically affiliated himself with a Christian congregation". Joseph Smith was told to join none of the churches because of their corruptness. How then is it possibly "logical" for Oliver to join one?
p58: On Oliver's courtroom testimony, the author describes how inaccurate the sources are, but because they back his point of view, he then states: "Yet history is filled with examples of authentic events not very accurately described..."
p64, footnote #18: "There is every reason to trust Lang's personal reminiscences but every reason to distrust Lang's theories on the origin of the Book of Mormon"
p144: "Though filled with inaccuracies..."

Other inconsistencies:

p162: "A source to be quoted..." ????
p142: To use the author's own words - "...to take certain vindictive testimonials as historical fact is the height of irresponsibility". No, to quote the parts you agree with and discard the parts you don't, would be the "height of irresponsibility".

As a historian, you cannot simply extract what you like from someone's account and dismiss everything else they had to say, labelling the source as hostile or unreliable because the rest of their account contradicts your personal beliefs.

The final two chapters make up the conclusion of the author's message and are more scholarly than the remainder of the book, and are actually quite convincing in their effort to convey the fact that 1st hand accounts directly from the witnesses themselves carry more weight than all other accounts. Based on these accounts, there is no conclusive record (according to the author) of any of the Three Witnesses ever denying what they stated in the official testimony, in spite of all three leaving the official LDS organisation.

On a final note, I personally struggle with the fact that based on those last two paragraphs (above), we are left with someone like David Whitmer, a man of solid integrity, who in his published account proclaims his testimony of the Book of Mormon to be true, and then also states Joseph Smith was led astray (by Sidney Rigdon) and introduced doctrines not of God, and that David Whitmer had this all confirmed via a revelation involving a visitation from an angel.

Do we believe it all, do we believe none, or only the parts we want...?

link: http://www.amazon.com/review/R1PPNID1F8 ... NID1F8UP5O

So... who am I to believe? (the bold is mine)