Joseph Smith wrote witnesses statement

[_Drifting]

I was hoping you'd notice the bits where he quotes eye witnesses to the translation process....*sigh*....

And I'll keep asking the same question till you understand it - how many of them translated Gold plates by the gift and power of the God? And the answer is again going to be ZERO!

So, unless you've done it yourself you can't comment?

[_Tobin]

1. Joseph Smith claimed multiple authors
2. BYU word studies have shown mulitple authors
3. Criddle shows mulitple authors
4. Skousen claims one author.

Discuss, engaging directly and specifically the 4 above points.

Throwing your hands in the air and repeating "we don't know," doesn't cut it. See Mighty Builder's threads. Remembering how annoying those got?

Let me get out my seer stone and put it in my stove-pipe hat and give you the answer. Let's see... mmmm, I don't know seems to be the answer I'm getting BECAUSE the honest, factual answer is I really don't know. The only person that would know is Joseph Smith because he translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. And he didn't seem to go into much detail about it.

However, it is claimed that Oliver Cowdrey also did a very small portion, but no-one to-date has been able to identify which portion (if any) that he "translated". So, if Oliver did translate it, and it is in the consistent style the Joseph Smith followed and indistinguishable from his own style, I would take that as a point in my favor that we just don't understand the process that was used and why two seperate individuals would follow the exact same word choices and style.

[_Tobin]

So, unless you've done it yourself you can't comment?

I have commented (as have many others) about it. Speculation is free, but since none of the people speculating (and commenting) have actually done it - it is ridiculous to believe their assertions that they know how it was actually accomplished.

[_lulu]

1. Joseph Smith claimed multiple authors
2. BYU word studies have shown mulitple authors
3. Criddle shows mulitple authors
4. Skousen claims one author.

Discuss, engaging directly and specifically the 4 above points.

Throwing your hands in the air and repeating "we don't know," doesn't cut it. See Mighty Builder's threads. Remembering how annoying those got?

Let me get out my seer stone and put it in my stove-pipe hat and give you the answer.

Don't forget the tin foil.
I got a more subtantive answer in this thread from why me.

[_marg]

My major issue with your response is that for me all evidence points to one author of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith. I have read most of the arguments for other authors, but none of it sits well with me. As Phil Barlow articulates so well, Smith was already writing in "King James Bible" form by 1828.

I don't think the evidence can replace Smith; for me, the preponderance of the evidence points to Smith.

And quite a number of spalding witnesses said Spalding wrote in biblical language to make the story he was writing and reading to them sound ancient..that includes his wife and the printer who had spalding's manuscript which Spalding had brought in to be printed. So it's quite conceivable that Smith was copying the biblical sounding style from Spalding's manuscript.

[_Chap]

Instead it is written in a language that I can only describe as a transparently inexpert attempt to imitate the kind of English found in the King James Bible, an attempt made by someone who does not properly understand how the grammar of early 17th century English actually worked.

I didn't know that was a requirement for something to be considered inspired or not. That is a fascinating position to take. So if God spoke to us today, he'd have to use "correct" early 17th century English to speak with us.

If there is deity who chooses to address us in human speech or writing, we are of course in no position to say what language he might choose for that purpose. But I seem to recall that you have from time to time on this board shown that you felt that it is possible to apply human reason in deciding what your deity is or is not likely to have done. Do you think it likely that if he communicated in a human language, he would do so incorrectly and imperfectly, so it looked as if he was attempting to address us in Putonghua, or Akkadian, or Old Mon, or a conservative version of early 17th century English - but somehow failed to get the grammar and vocabulary quite right?

And as for it being "Joseph Smith that did the translation" - do we have to lay out, yet again, that the earliest accounts of how the text produced do not describe Smith as looking at the Reformed Egyptian text, somehow coming to know its meaning, and hunting for English words to express it, a process that we might have called 'translation', even if we have no idea how Smith came to know that meaning? Instead they describe Smith as having the correct English words revealed to him ready made.

Again, we don't know how the translation process took place. Joseph Smith did not know the language, so what would be in his own words and what would be genuinely carried over from the original authors words (and meanings) are hard to evaluate.

You simply ignore what I say and simply give a pre-prepared response.

You have been on this board, and have heard the detailed discussion of accounts of the process of delivery of Book of Mormon text like this one by David Whitmer:

I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.

I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation... . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation

(An Address to All Believers in Christ,12)

This leaves no room whatsoever for any influence from Smith's linguistic tastes. Goodness knows how the scam was actually worked, but there seems no doubt the choice of fake 'King James English' was supposed to strengthen an overall impression that the language of the Book of Mormon came 'direct from the Lord'.

[_Tobin]

If there is deity who chooses to address us in human speech or writing, we are of course in no position to say what language he might choose for that purpose. But I seem to recall that you have from time to time on this board felt that it is reasonable to apply human reason in deciding what your deity is or is not likely to have done. Do you think it likely that if he communicated in a human language, he would do so incorrectly and imperfectly, so it looked as if he was attempting to address us in Putonghua, or Akkadian, or Old Mon, or a conservative version of early 17th century English - but somehow failed to get the grammar and vocabulary quite right?

And if God had presented the Book of Mormon all translated and ready for publishing in a nice box with a bow on top, not on doilies though - I hate that crap, I would agree. But that isn't the case here. God worked through a very flawed human being to produce the Book of Mormon instead. And before you give me some mumbo-jumbo about Joseph Smith being God's sock puppet and therefore it should have been perfect, NO - since when has man ever been God's sock puppet.

You simply ignore what I say and simply give a pre-prepared response.

Yeah, News Flash!!! - I do that a lot because you, Themis, and the rest of the caste of muppets on here always seem to repeat exactly the same stupid stuff. In fact, I'm planning on writing a macro and attaching it to a hotkey to respond with soon.

You have been on this board, and have heard the detailed discussion of accounts of the process of delivery of Book of Mormon text like this one by David Whitmer: ...

Why yes I have and guess what?!? Color me unimpressed. David Whitmer translated a total of zero Gold Plates by the gift and power of God.

This leaves no room whatsoever for any influence from Smith's linguistic tastes. Goodness knows how the scam was actually worked, but there seems no doubt the choice of fake 'King James English' was supposed to strengthen the impression that the language of the Book of Mormon came 'direct from the Lord'.

There is no room in your head you mean (and only in your head). Your lack of imagination and lack of ability to discern between people that speculate, such a David Whitmer, and people that might know such as Joseph Smith, never ceases to amaze and delight me.

[_Chap]

Hmm. Usual Tobin response: no case, abuse the plaintiff's attorney ...

This man does not play straight. Here is our exchange on the first point:

Instead it is written in a language that I can only describe as a transparently inexpert attempt to imitate the kind of English found in the King James Bible, an attempt made by someone who does not properly understand how the grammar of early 17th century English actually worked.

I didn't know that was a requirement for something to be considered inspired or not. That is a fascinating position to take. So if God spoke to us today, he'd have to use "correct" early 17th century English to speak with us.

If there is deity who chooses to address us in human speech or writing, we are of course in no position to say what language he might choose for that purpose. But I seem to recall that you have from time to time on this board shown that you felt that it is possible to apply human reason in deciding what your deity is or is not likely to have done. Do you think it likely that if he communicated in a human language, he would do so incorrectly and imperfectly, so it looked as if he was attempting to address us in Putonghua, or Akkadian, or Old Mon, or a conservative version of early 17th century English - but somehow failed to get the grammar and vocabulary quite right?

And if God had presented the Book of Mormon all translated and ready for publishing in a nice box with a bow on top, not on doilies though - I hate that crap, I would agree. But that isn't the case here. God worked through a very flawed human being to produce the Book of Mormon instead. And before you give me some mumbo-jumbo about Joseph Smith being God's sock puppet and therefore it should have been perfect, NO - since when has man ever been God's sock puppet.

Notice how it goes:

1. I point out that far from being in Joseph Smith's habitual speech, the Book of Mormon is in pseudo-"Bible talk".

2. Tobin implies that he does not think that is an argument against the text being one that 'God spoke'.

3. I counter that point by saying that it seems odd that if 'God spoke' in a language of his choice, he would get grammar wrong.

4. Tobin jumps to another position, abandoning the position in (2) without actually saying so, and resorts to the 'working through an imperfect man' ploy.

The rest of his post is basically enraged burbling. If anyone thinks Tobin's post has anything in it that deserves an answer from me, will they let me know?

[_Joe Geisner]

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/20 ... statement/

Royal has put up his eight witness statement post.

I wonder if he has read Dan Vogel's article? Everything he writes fits perfectly into Dan's historical analysis. As Dan discusses, it make sense that Smith had made plates of tin by the time the eight handled them, and Royal writes "The emphasis in their statement is on what they saw. For instance, the plates had “the appearance of gold”, and the engravings had “the appearance of ancient work and of curious workmanship”. They did not claim the plates were made of gold; they did not claim that the work was ancient or skillfully done – but from what they could see, it was so! The plates were heavy – they hefted them."

This fits into Dan's article perfectly!

[_lulu]

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2012/06/who-authored-the-eight-witness-statement/

Royal has put up his eight witness statement post.

I wonder if he has read Dan Vogel's article? Everything he writes fits perfectly into Dan's historical analysis. As Dan discusses, it make sense that Smith had made plates of tin by the time the eight handled them, and Royal writes "The emphasis in their statement is on what they saw. For instance, the plates had “the appearance of gold”, and the engravings had “the appearance of ancient work and of curious workmanship”. They did not claim the plates were made of gold; they did not claim that the work was ancient or skillfully done – but from what they could see, it was so! The plates were heavy – they hefted them."

This fits into Dan's article perfectly!

"And like the experience of the eight witnesses, the statement itself was created without any spiritual intervention."

He makes no attempt to deal with John Whitmer's "supernatural" statement. Why me is out ahead of him.