Carmack's current position on Book of Mormon authorship

[canpakes]

In heaven, a resurrected committee (they can't be ghosts, or how would they interact with the plates?) of 16th century reformers, temple worked completed, were chosen to translate the plates. For some reason Moroni, who was familiar with all the requisite languages wasn't available, so these reformers had to learn the Nephite language and get to work.

How did they learn the Nephite language?

[Limnor]

My understanding is there was no real need to actually learn Nephite or Reformed Egyptian or whatever. The committee just used those oversized 1500s hats and the stones that were sealed up with the plates. Simples.

[Marcus]

My understanding is there was no real need to actually learn Nephite or Reformed Egyptian or whatever. The committee just used those oversized 1500s hats and the stones that were sealed up with the plates. Simples.

I don't think the seerstone came with the plates because Smith used it first to con people into paying him to look for hidden treasure. Also it's still here, right? Unless the committee used those urim and thummim thingies that I was taught in my youth looked like spectacles made out of stone, like something the Flintstones would have used.

[Limnor]

My understanding is there was no real need to actually learn Nephite or Reformed Egyptian or whatever. The committee just used those oversized 1500s hats and the stones that were sealed up with the plates. Simples.

I don't think the seerstone came with the plates because Smith used it first to con people into paying him to look for hidden treasure. Also it's still here, right? Unless the committee used those urim and thummim thingies that I was taught in my youth looked like spectacles made out of stone, like something the Flintstones would have used.

Slight derail, but your point about the stones above reminded me of my theory of Joseph’s usurpation.

In Ether, the interpreters are sealed up with the record, so yes, they were supposed to have been found together. But in Mosiah, Limhi has the plates and can’t translate them—someone else has the “interpreters.” So somehow they were separated, or “sealed with” doesn’t mean what it sounds like, or they didn’t exist at all, or pick your explanation. Also, yeah, why were the plates taken back by the angel but not the interpreter stone/thingy he continued to use for revelations?

So for Carmack’s fun fantasy, the plates and interpreters could have been available to the ghost committee—though on further review the text never actually says Moroni sealed the interpreters up again with the plates.

[Gadianton]

I never would have noticed that and I never thought about those verses in context of Early Modern English. But doesn't Early Modern English redefine what the interpreters actually are? A few years ago, I thought I saw an apologist refer to the seer stone as an "iPhone". That's closer to the truth. Either the translation had been completed and uploaded to the phone, or the phone communicated with somebody elsewhere who fed it with data that was ready to go.

So what the Early Modern English crowd is saying that the interpreters don't interpret, they are coms devices, and so anytime they were used in history, a committee on the other side had to hustle with a translation before hand. Which means an angel or other supernatural being had to find and steal away the record to be discovered by humans first to get it translated, and then rebury the record.

This makes some sense as "tight translation" is conceptually vacuous. The Early Modern English crowd still believes in normal translation, just done by other parties. "Interpreters" seems to qualify as another Mormon concept with a regress problem, making it a fitting name for an apologist outlet.

[Limnor]

gad wrote: Either the translation had been completed and uploaded to the phone, or the phone communicated with somebody elsewhere who fed it with data that was ready to go.

I agree. So Joseph somehow feeds the Reformed Egyptian into the iPhone/ FaceTime and the committee translates into olde English and then retransmits back to Joseph.

Ok.

[Limnor]

But a naturalist explanation is absurd. Mmhmm.

[Marcus]

I never would have noticed that and I never thought about those verses in context of Early Modern English. But doesn't Early Modern English redefine what the interpreters actually are? A few years ago, I thought I saw an apologist refer to the seer stone as an "iPhone". That's closer to the truth. Either the translation had been completed and uploaded to the phone, or the phone communicated with somebody elsewhere who fed it with data that was ready to go.

So what the Early Modern English crowd is saying that the interpreters don't interpret, they are coms devices, and so anytime they were used in history, a committee on the other side had to hustle with a translation before hand. Which means an angel or other supernatural being had to find and steal away the record to be discovered by humans first to get it translated, and then rebury the record...

If I recall correctly, didn't McClellan suggest that he considers the B of M to be scripture more like biblical writings? Where many people may have contributed in translating a language into English, resulting in something like KJV scripture. Of course, this adds some convoluted layers of nonbelievability, as there is no record of these translating people, throughout any of these other times (Early Modern English, late middle english, etc.,) no record of the additional translators' civilizations or locations, nor the record's original civilization, location, or language (still.)

As i write out McClellan's approach, if i have it correctly assessed, it dawns on me it's only improvement in terms of realism is that Peterson didn't sully it with a ghost committee joke. Otherwise it's still completely unlikely, when considered next to a naturalist explanation.

[malkie]

gad wrote: Either the translation had been completed and uploaded to the phone, or the phone communicated with somebody elsewhere who fed it with data that was ready to go.

I agree. So Joseph somehow feeds the Reformed Egyptian into the iPhone/ FaceTime and the committee translates into olde English and then retransmits back to Joseph.

Ok.

Loose translation, or tight?

One word sent/received at a time (as Joseph saw the Reformed Egyptian using the stone in the hat), or complete phrases/sentences?

Reference material available to the committee (e.g., KJV Bible - don't laugh - why not? ), or everything is done off the tops of their heads?

One committee member per unit of text to translate, or consultation?

Committee members from different time periods understood each other perfectly, or there were little (unrecognized) issues due to changes in the English language?

[Limnor]

As i write out McClellan's approach, if i have it correctly assessed, it dawns on me it's only improvement in terms of realism is that Peterson didn't sully it with a ghost committee joke. Otherwise it's still completely unlikely, when considered next to a naturalist explanation.

I read McClellan as a deflection. Explain that the Bible’s transmission is messy too, and you don’t have to explain how the stone in the hat process actually works.