The Isaiah Problem

[_Drifting]

In due course the plates were delivered to Joseph Smith, who translated them by the gift and power of God.

The introduction page within the Book of Mormon certainly creates the impression that they were directly used. That, along with the pictures used within teaching manuals showing Joseph studying gold pates to produce the translation, would seem to go against what you agree we now know about the translation process.

I don't know what you want me to say here. Translation was the term used to describe the process.

Okay I'll simplify.

You said (and all the evidence agrees with you) - Joseph didn't use the plates in the translation process.

The Church says/portrays - Joseph did use the plates in the translation process.

(I'm not asking you for a response or a comment I was merely pointing out that you are in direct opposition to the Church teaching on this)

[_sock puppet]

Stem, have you ever seen a quote stating that a KJV was used as a resource in the translation?

No. But two possibilities:

1. A KJV could have been consulted but no mention was ever made.
2. The process itself produced KJV text.

stem, which of these two possibilities, #1 or #2, do you believe?

Which do you find more probable than the other?

Is most in harmony with the teachings of the LDS Church on the production of the Book of Mormon?

[_stemelbow]

Okay I'll simplify.

You said (and all the evidence agrees with you) - Joseph didn't use the plates in the translation process.

The Church says/portrays - Joseph did use the plates in the translation process.

(I'm not asking you for a response or a comment I was merely pointing out that you are in direct opposition to the Church teaching on this)

I'd be fine with that anyway. But saying they were translated does not mean they were used, necessarily.

[_stemelbow]

stem, which of these two possibilities, #1 or #2, do you believe?

No preference.

Which do you find more probable than the other?

copying it out of a copy of the KJV I suppose.

Is most in harmony with the teachings of the LDS Church on the production of the Book of Mormon?

What do I care?

[_Willy Law]

Stem,
Given the church's definition of lying as discussed in Chapter 31 (see quote) of the current Gospel Principles manual, do you think the church is guilty of lying to it's members and investigators in regards to the translation method?

There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

[_Drifting]

Stem,
Given the church's definition of lying as discussed in Chapter 31 (see quote) of the current Gospel Principles manual, do you think the church is guilty of lying to it's members and investigators in regards to the translation method?

There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

The Church clearly fails to meet its own prescribed standards of honesty. I think that gives one pause to consider what else may be treated in this fashion by the Church.

[_stemelbow]

Stem,
Given the church's definition of lying as discussed in Chapter 31 (see quote) of the current Gospel Principles manual, do you think the church is guilty of lying to it's members and investigators in regards to the translation method?

I don't personally know whether all those involved in church publication know how the translation took place. Also, as I said, it could be that Joseph used the plates, in spite of the witness claim that he didn't. I don't know. Also, I don't think there's a huge difference in saying the plates were translated to the plates contained the messages that became the Book of Mormon, albeit rendered in a lost and archaic language. So, no. NOt necessarily.

[_stemelbow]

The Church clearly fails to meet its own prescribed standards of honesty. I think that gives one pause to consider what else may be treated in this fashion by the Church.

Oh brother...

[_Drifting]

The Church clearly fails to meet its own prescribed standards of honesty. I think that gives one pause to consider what else may be treated in this fashion by the Church.

Oh brother...

What in this statement causes you a problem?

[_Willy Law]

The Church clearly fails to meet its own prescribed standards of honesty. I think that gives one pause to consider what else may be treated in this fashion by the Church.

Oh brother...

Thanks for answering Stem.
I disagree and happen to believe the church is "lying" when they present their history. You see the same treatment of history from the church with regards to the 1st Vision, Origination of the Endowment, Restoration of the Priesthood etc. etc. So I see where Drifting is coming from.