Runtu wrote: And remember that Martin Harris explained that the 116 pages were translated using the stone-in-hat method, so such a picture would be inaccurate if it had Martin Harris instead of Oliver Cowdery.
Martin Harris explained the translation to Edward Stevenson in this manner:
By the aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say, "Written," and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used.4
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
why me wrote:I think that you know what I meant. It was oliver who wrote what Joseph Smith said to write. However, it was oliver who was active in the process. And he was certainly amazed at the process and said that the days spent in the work were wonderful and marvelous. He also confirmed his testimony on his deathbed. And at the end of the day, this is very powerful and the first hand account critics will need to consider it carefully.
Did Oliver ever explain the process? I'm not aware of him describing it other than as Joseph receiving the words by inspiration:
“These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, ‘Interpreters,’ the history or record called ‘The Book of Mormon.’
why me wrote:I think that oliver would be the most reliable eye witness since he did most of the translating. And from what we know from one of his friends, oliver described it this way. But this is what I do know: Oliver was quite impressed with the translation method and knew that it was done by the power of god. So much so, that he came back to the church and bore his testimony to the saints and bore his testimony on his deathbed to all those that were there, including wife.
Now that is pretty powerful.
Yet another dodge. If only someone in this thread were counting the number of times this question was asked, and then evaded by the mopologists.
Whyme, here is what Oliver supposedly said about the "translation":
“These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, ‘Interpreters,’ the history or record called ‘The Book of Mormon.’
Do you see the "Interpreters" in the above image? Does Oliver's account say anything about the plates being in full view on the table?
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
why me wrote:Martin Harris explained the translation to Edward Stevenson in this manner:
By the aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say, "Written," and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used.4
That's entirely consistent with the other eyewitness testimony.
why me wrote: Except there was more than one person present at his deathbed testimony.
SO ... ?
Do you have a written account from each death bed witness, so that I can see if they head the same thing. ? Were they written down right after he died?
Or is this simple the story of someone, years after the fact, recalling what cowdery said and who was there. Or is this even further removed, "I have a cousin, whose mother was present when Oliver died, and as he lay dying, and he said ...."
Like I said, start with Oliver's earliest first hand written account of what took place.
why me wrote:Martin Harris explained the translation to Edward Stevenson in this manner:
By the aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say, "Written," and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used.4
That's entirely consistent with the other eyewitness testimony.
You know the loose translation vs tight translation might just be a function of which seer stones were used. The ones Moroni gave him were probably in better shape because they had been stored in a box then the one buried at the bottom of a well. Maybe Joseph had to use his hat because the words were not as clear in his own seer stone. So the 116 pages would be a word for word translation with no errors while the rest of the Book of Mormon's errors can be blamed on the use of inferior seer stones thus causing the need for greater faith to believe in it. It's a win win for apologetics.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Runtu wrote: Did Oliver ever explain the process? I'm not aware of him describing it other than as Joseph receiving the words by inspiration:
According to Samuel W. Richards, Oliver Cowdery gave him the following description of the translation of the Book of Mormon:
He represented Joseph as sitting at a table with the plates before him, translating them by means of the Urim and Thummim, while he (Oliver) sat beside him writing every word as Joseph spoke them to him. This was done by holding the "translators" over the hieroglyphics, the translation appearing distinctly on the instrument, which had been touched by the finger of God and dedicated and consecrated for the express purpose of translating languages. Every word was distinctly visible even to every letter; and if Oliver omitted a word or failed to spell a word correctly, the translation remained on the "interpreter" until it was copied correctly.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Runtu wrote: Did Oliver ever explain the process? I'm not aware of him describing it other than as Joseph receiving the words by inspiration:
According to Samuel W. Richards, Oliver Cowdery gave him the following description of the translation of the Book of Mormon:
He represented Joseph as sitting at a table with the plates before him, translating them by means of the Urim and Thummim, while he (Oliver) sat beside him writing every word as Joseph spoke them to him. This was done by holding the "translators" over the hieroglyphics, the translation appearing distinctly on the instrument, which had been touched by the finger of God and dedicated and consecrated for the express purpose of translating languages. Every word was distinctly visible even to every letter; and if Oliver omitted a word or failed to spell a word correctly, the translation remained on the "interpreter" until it was copied correctly.
A second-hand hearsay account given 78 years after the fact. Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts. Oh, and by the way, this account doesn't even match the images the church uses--it talks about using the translators over the plates!
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
Like I said, start with Oliver's earliest first hand written account of what took place.
The place to look for that would be in the First Presidency's vault. If Joseph Fielding Smith can be believed, the church was in possession of the earliest contemporary history of the church, written by Oliver Cowdery himself. For some reason, though, the church has never published it or allowed historians like Bushman, et al. to look at it. Hofmann claimed to have seen it in the 80s, but was almost certainly lying about that, as he claimed the history supported his white salamander story. Still, one wonders why JFS would say there was such an account if there wasn't. Or why the church wouldn't want the world to see it. Maybe that's the apologetic out: the visual depictions used by the church match the account by Oliver that is in the secret history buried deep in the FP's vault. We critics can't prove it isn't true, so, voila! Instant apologetic. Problem solved.
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
for what it's worth, I'm teaching the 17yo Sunday School class this year, and in our first lesson on the Book of Mormon two weeks ago we discussed the history of the translation process and I mentioned the face-in-a-hat method of translation. The reaction from the teenagers: blank looks and glassy-eyed stares.
Based on the last few months of teaching, I suspect the greatest threat to the future of the Church isn't sin or doubt on the part of the youth, it's indifference.
