Book of Mormon geography

[_Shulem]

I'll agree that Joseph Smith was not infallible in his claims to translate an ancient language. But really, what is the miracle in his translations of Facsimile No. 3? I fail to see or discern any kind of miracle in deciphering the writing in which he so miraculously (with authority) claimed to interpret.

Paul O

I always love Paul who continually brings up the one area(Book of Abraham) apologists scurry out of sight when brought up.

Trust me, Brant doesn't want to tangle with me over this issue. I don't blame him one bit. If I was in his shoes, I'd run too. It's a painful thorn in his side.

Paul O

[_Jaybear]

So I take it the answer to my question is no?

Actually, when I said yes, you may take it to mean "yes."

The physical method Joseph employed involved a stone in the crown of his hat. That, however, did not create the translation (I don't believe stones have much power in and of themselves, and kinetic energy only when someone throws them). Therefore, I see the translation process occurring separately from the physical process that triggered it.

I hope I haven't confused the issue too much by trying to be clear.

You didn't answer MY question, and I am convinced now that your not trying to be clear.

I simply asked if you have any evidence that Smith PURPORTED to translate the book by any means other than means described by Whitmer, Harris and others who were present when Smith PURPORTED to translate the Book of Mormon.

Had you actually answered yes, I would have taken it to mean yes, and I would have asked what evidence you had.

I will note that Skausen's analysis is not evidence of how Smith PURPORTED to translate the book. Skausen's analysis is evidence that those who witnessed and described the translation process were either lying or were duped. That does not come as a surprise to me. Its also very good evidence that you may use in a discussion with a fellow true believer to support your personal belief that Smith employed a loose translation method.

Note, I did not ask you how Smith translated the book. Nor would I, as I consider the book a 19th century work of fiction.

[_Brant Gardner]

Then why do you claim to?

I admit the hubris. It is an interesting and important question and deserves better answers than those that are built solely on assumptions.

[_Brant Gardner]

How about volunteering the time used to discuss the translation of a non-existant text at the nearest homeless shelter.

We actually had some Relief Society sisters attempt to help out at a local shelter. They were refused because they were Mormon. Oh well.

[_Brant Gardner]

Did Oliver Cowdery say anything about his experience translating? He translated a few pages of the Book of Mormon too.

No, and there is nothing Skousen found in the manuscript that would show where he made the attempt, though here was one possibility that Skousen dismissed.

[Guest]

Then why do you claim to?

I admit the hubris. It is an interesting and important question and deserves better answers than those that are built solely on assumptions.

So you really claim to know, even after asserting (let's use that word to death) that no one know? That makes no sense.

Your assertions (that is funner the more I use it) are based on you knowing how it was done, or something fundamental about the process. You take this assertion (yes, again) and use it to explain the serious problems with the text. You assert (oooooooh, yeah) that horses, steel, and D-Isaiah are no problem. Based on what?

[_Brant Gardner]

I always love Paul who continually brings up the one area(Book of Abraham) apologists scurry out of sight when brought up.

I don't claim any expertise in that area, so I don't discuss it. However, I strongly suspect that the translation process Joseph used was consistent and that process explains much of what people find disconcerting about the Book of Abraham.

Having said that much, I will return to silence on the topic. It isn't what I am interested in.

[_Brant Gardner]

Once again, we have a story clearly designed to suggest that Smith had no role in choosing the wording of the text.

And you neglected to read what I said about that quotation? Wouldn't it be better to actually read rather than stop and assume?

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

1. No one knows how the translation works.
2. There are errors in the text.
3. Brandt knows how the translation works.

QED

[_Chap]

Once again, we have a story clearly designed to suggest that Smith had no role in choosing the wording of the text.

And you neglected to read what I said about that quotation? Wouldn't it be better to actually read rather than stop and assume?

There is a limit to the amount of typing from an uncopyable on-screen page I am willing to do. Of course I didn't stop reading.

Now you on the other hand must have an electronic text of that book on your computer. If you want us to see your comment, just cut and paste it onto this board.

Looking back at the page, I do wonder what important point you think your next paragraph adds in the context of this discussion. It basically says (surprise) that Coe must have heard the story from the Saints, since (of course) he didn't see Smith translating.

But go on - cut and paste away.