Neo, I'll try my own simplified "translation" for you:
The plates were written in Reformed Egyptian. Joseph couldn't read Reformed Egyptian. Through the seerstone he could see the translation, and even the correct spelling of names. Were the plates needed? Not really. They could have been 5,000 miles away, and Joseph could still have had the translation through the seerstone, hence the analogy to computers.
Does that help at all? Maybe not.
LDS.org posts Book of Mormon translation that opposes Peterson's PBS one
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 87
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:20 pm
Re: LDS.org posts Book of Mormon translation that opposes Peterson's PBS one
Ray A wrote:Neo, I'll try my own simplified "translation" for you:
The plates were written in Reformed Egyptian. Joseph couldn't read Reformed Egyptian. Through the seerstone he could see the translation, and even the correct spelling of names. Were the plates needed? Not really. They could have been 5,000 miles away, and Joseph could still have had the translation through the seerstone, hence the analogy to computers.
Does that help at all? Maybe not.
Yes, this helps me understand the analogy.
I guess my issue is this.
If the plates were used for the translation, then the seerstone had no relevance.
If the seerstone was used for the translation, then the plates had no relevance.
Re: LDS.org posts Book of Mormon translation that opposes Peterson's PBS one
Neo wrote:Yes, this helps me understand the analogy.
I guess my issue is this.
If the plates were used for the translation, then the seerstone had no relevance.
If the seerstone was used for the translation, then the plates had no relevance.
In theory the plates weren't needed at all. They could have remained buried in the earth, and upon obtaining the seerstone, Joseph could have done the translation. DCP argues that the plates were tangible evidence that the translation came from somewhere (if I understand him correctly). And that is why they were "needed", to assure Joseph and his followers that the translation didn't come out of thin air, but from tangible plates.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 18195
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am
Re: LDS.org posts Book of Mormon translation that opposes Peterson's PBS one
Ray A wrote:Neo wrote:Yes, this helps me understand the analogy.
I guess my issue is this.
If the plates were used for the translation, then the seerstone had no relevance.
If the seerstone was used for the translation, then the plates had no relevance.
In theory the plates weren't needed at all. They could have remained buried in the earth, and upon obtaining the seerstone, Joseph could have done the translation. DCP argues that the plates were tangible evidence that the translation came from somewhere (if I understand him correctly). And that is why they were "needed", to assure Joseph and his followers that the translation didn't come out of thin air, but from tangible plates.
But it did come out of thin air. Well, depending on the air inside the hat, but still...
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Re: LDS.org posts Book of Mormon translation that opposes Peterson's PBS one
harmony wrote:
But it did come out of thin air. Well, depending on the air inside the hat, but still...
I have my own theory. Not very scientific, but I think it's the best fit considering all the circumstances.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 7173
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm
Re: LDS.org posts Book of Mormon translation that opposes Peterson's PBS one
harmony wrote:But it did come out of thin air. Well, depending on the air inside the hat, but still...
No, harmony. Your opinion on this comes out of thin air. Don't get confused, dear.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 18195
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am
Re: LDS.org posts Book of Mormon translation that opposes Peterson's PBS one
Daniel Peterson wrote:harmony wrote:But it did come out of thin air. Well, depending on the air inside the hat, but still...
No, harmony. Your opinion on this comes out of thin air. Don't get confused, dear.
You're saying there was no air in the hat?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.