Themis wrote:You misunderstand. I never meant there is no honest scholars among LDS. I think there are many. Bias can effect honest scholars as well as they can everyone else. Now can you provide evidence or not for a loose translation. That would be nice. I have yet to see any from anyone.
It could be a tight control instance and still come out with the passge from Mark and Isaiah. I've already made that clear.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Themis wrote:You misunderstand. I never meant there is no honest scholars among LDS. I think there are many. Bias can effect honest scholars as well as they can everyone else. Now can you provide evidence or not for a loose translation. That would be nice. I have yet to see any from anyone.
It could be a tight control instance and still come out with the passge from Mark and Isaiah. I've already made that clear.
I was not asking for possibilities. I was asking if you had actual evidence for a loose translation. Possibilities or assertions do not mean one has evdience for such possibilities or assertions. Do you have any evidence? You did say you believed that loose translation may have been a part of the translation process. I was not asking about Mark or Isiah. I am aware one can make up any possibility like God knew the future and just inserted it into the Book of Mormon.
KimberlyAnn wrote:So God quoted what He knew to be a forgery to Joseph Smith and passed if off as scripture? God also knew the passage would eventually be exposed as fraudulent, but quoted it anyway, even though He could foresee the trouble it would cause His church? That's like God quoting Hofmann forgeries to Pres. Kimball and calling them scripture! Good grief, that's absurd.
God also was so concerned with the correct word-for-word translation of the Bible that He initiated the JST. To Matthew 6.1, Smith added "And it came to pass that, as Jesus taught his disciples, he said unto them...." That tidbit adds nothing to the passage except unnecessary verbiage. It is the same with numerous passages in the JST. God was apparently interested in a tight translation of the Bible to be concerned with such minutia, but He wasn't concerned with a tight translation of the Book of Mormon. He was more interested in a general theme rather than textual accuracy. I see.
Funny that God didn't point out the fraudulent nature of portions of Mark 16 to Joseph Smith. It's understandable, though, since He'd just passed it off as scripture Himself!
KA
I think this post is just to good not to bring up again. I wish people like stem would read it more carefully.
I would also add this post from a celestial thread. The link is also very good
Lost Mystic wrote:First off, I want to acknowledge that I am aware that everyone has biases, a unique framework of viewing existence and all of that.
It is my perception that apologists start with an assumption, and do their best to twist, turn, and shove everything into a box and hope it fits.
When presented with reasonable evidence, shouldn't we re-examine our position and change? And be willing to change as new things come to light?
The act of desperately attempting to explain away evidences that contradict one's assumptions or beliefs makes the assumptions or beliefs begin to appear suspect...
Here is a fantastic exit story that won some type of web award, where the author lost his faith due to apologetics...it is hilarious:
But for those LDS apologists on the board, did you ever waiver in your belief when you discovered certain things that appear to discredit your beliefs? Do you ever feel that you are working too hard to have things make sense in your world view?
What would it take for you personally to change your beliefs? Or could nothing, no matter how strange or damaging alter your views?
Themis wrote:I was not asking for possibilities. I was asking if you had actual evidence for a loose translation. Possibilities or assertions do not mean one has evdience for such possibilities or assertions. Do you have any evidence? You did say you believed that loose translation may have been a part of the translation process. I was not asking about Mark or Isiah. I am aware one can make up any possibility like God knew the future and just inserted it into the Book of Mormon.
I'd say the issue between the loose and the tight is not translation per se, but transcription, essentially. did God require Joseph Smith speak each word correctly? We don't really know. We can surmise that there was one guy who said it was that the message didn't disappear and the work didn't move on until it was written perfectly, but I doubt that was the case. I think perhaps there was some need to get some names right and get the ideas right, but I doubt each word was perfectly spoken and then recorded. Is there evidence for my view? Oh I don't know. I suppose I've read some people's ideas on the matter, but I don't know how much it all mounts too. Skousen takes the tight control, as far as I"m aware view. Brant Gardner is one, I believe, who disagrees. I think he plans on writing something on this (at least I thought he said that recently over at MDD).
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote: I'd say the issue between the loose and the tight is not translation per se, but transcription, essentially. did God require Joseph Smith speak each word correctly? We don't really know. We can surmise that there was one guy who said it was that the message didn't disappear and the work didn't move on until it was written perfectly, but I doubt that was the case. I think perhaps there was some need to get some names right and get the ideas right, but I doubt each word was perfectly spoken and then recorded. Is there evidence for my view? Oh I don't know. I suppose I've read some people's ideas on the matter, but I don't know how much it all mounts too. Skousen takes the tight control, as far as I"m aware view. Brant Gardner is one, I believe, who disagrees. I think he plans on writing something on this (at least I thought he said that recently over at MDD).
Skousen goes with the evidence. I haven't seen Brant present any. I always love the tight here and loose here translation. Makes me laugh. I think you might want to read up on skousen's reason for rejecting the loose translation.
Themis wrote:Skousen goes with the evidence. I haven't seen Brant present any. I always love the tight here and loose here translation. Makes me laugh. I think you might want to read up on skousen's reason for rejecting the loose translation.
Done and done. Its been a little while but I suspect we'll be seeing more on this topic, and the reasons for a loose control will be better understood.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote: Done and done. Its been a little while but I suspect we'll be seeing more on this topic, and the reasons for a loose control will be better understood.
Hopefully they may actually provide some evidence for such, but then it makes no sense. I like what KA and Lost Mystic said. I think it describes how silly some of our thinking can be without realizing it.