Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_Chap]

Joseph Smith is not the author of the Book of Mormon ...

[_Kishkumen]

This has some interesting material on the dictation: http://www.whitmercollege.com/topics/dictated-yes

I suppose Skousen didn't mention an obvious alternative because Emma said specifically, shortly before her death, that her husband didn't use any book during the dictation, and because MS evidence supports that statement.

The opposing viewpoint, that Joseph Smith got ideas and he translated them into his own English, cannot be supported by the manuscript and textual evidence. The only substantive argument for this alternative view has been the nonstandard nature of the text, with its implication that God would never speak ungrammatical English, so the nonstandard usage must be the result of Joseph Smith putting the ideas he received into his own language. Yet with the recent finding that the original vocabulary of the text appears to be dated from the 1500s and 1600s (not the 1800s), we now need to consider the possibility that the ungrammaticality of the original text may also date from that earlier period of time, not necessarily from Joseph’s own time and place. Joseph Smith is not the author of the Book of Mormon, nor is he actually the translator. Instead, he was the revelator: through him the Lord revealed the English-language text (by means of the interpreters, later called the Urim and Thummim, and the seer stone). Such a view is consistent, I believe, with Joseph’s use elsewhere of the verb translate to mean ‘transmit’ and the noun translation to mean ‘transmission’ (as in the eighth Article of Faith).

LOL. Oh dear. This is some scary BS. Here you have it, folks. Because Emma did not attest to the use of any manuscript, Joseph's bad grammar must be the result of some divine intervention that involves God or some other resurrected being giving the text to Joseph in Early Modern English.

You really can't make this stuff up.

Now, what possible theological purpose this could serve is beyond me. Is it because God knew that His people responded better to Early Modern English as authoritative sounding? One wonders.

This I do know: William Tyndale is not the author of the Book of Mormon.

John Dee and Edward Kelley are the authors.

[_brotherjake]

Those nuts and bolts are all assumed, from what I can see. There's no 'there', there. Members are asked to take it on faith that Smith translated letter-by-letter, but then something uncomfortable comes up, and suddenly the mechanics (apologists) are adding bits and pieces to the simple machine of the Book, looking for a fix. Keep that up, and what one eventually ends up with is a convoluted contraption criss-crossed with vestigial apparatus that serves no function other than to justify its addition and existence. It leaves one wondering why the simplest claim of creation - the direct and straightforward 'letter-for-letter' translation - is so easily tossed aside by folks who declare strong support for the Book. What is driving that decision? What is forcing that compromise? It honestly begins to feel that at the end of the day, efforts like Skousen's are so much chaff designed to obscure uncomfortable issues that poke at the apologists' hides - otherwise, why conjure unverifiable and bizarre scenarios of committees of dead famous people transliterating other dead pre-Columbians and haphazardly passing the result on to a fellow who is subsequently allowed to freely substitute in whatever the heck he wants to add or change, depending upon his whims or local cultural influence?

Do you have a line in the sand at which point you would reject a supportive Book translation theory? Or is anything game if its aim is to suggest the Book as historically factual? Are there any that you will not accept? I'm asking to try to determine how you approach and digest theories offered up by apologists in general.

Fantastically said, canpakes. The most telling difference between the "tight" and "loose" translation theories (with "tight" and "loose" referring to the relationship between the words in the (alleged) plates, the words that (allegedly) appeared on the stone, the words that Joseph dictated, the words the scribes wrote down, and the words that ended up in the printer's manuscript) is that the tight translation is a positive conclusion based on examining the historical evidence, and the loose translation is a retrofitted, reactive speculation used to explain the problems in the text. In other words, if the Book of Mormon was never found to be anachronistic, the loose translation theory would never have emerged. It's an apologetic invention as opposed to a positive, historical argument, which immediately damages its credibility.

MG, can you point to anything in the historical record (contemporary eyewitness accounts, analysis of the scribes' writing, etc.) that make a positive case for a "loose" translation?

[_tkv]

One interesting thing, MG, about the biblical material in the Book of Mormon is that there are about a thousand differences, many that aren't simple reading differences, but more substantive in nature. In fact, Skousen has found readings from several different biblical versions not just the 1769. So had Smith used a Bible in the dictation, he would have needed more than one. Since that's unlikely, this textual evidence also supports Emma's statement.

[_Kishkumen]

One interesting thing, MG, about the biblical material in the Book of Mormon is that there are about a thousand differences, many that aren't simple reading differences, but more substantive in nature. In fact, Skousen has found readings from several different biblical versions not just the 1769. So had Smith used a Bible in the dictation, he would have needed more than one. Since that's unlikely, this textual evidence also supports Emma's statement.

This supposes, of course, that once one says Joseph relied in some sense upon the Bible, then one is obligated to assume he slavishly followed his source. Indeed, according to this view, any variation that looks like another translation would then necessarily represent the same reliance upon another version of the Bible it looks like at that point. Of course, this is not the case at all. Joseph showed he felt entitled to change the Biblical text as he deemed fit, like he did when he later "translated" the Bible. In that case, LDS scholars argue that he was inspired to change the text to accord with other older manuscripts. Another simpler and more likely explanation is that he changed the language in such a way that it made sense to him (theologically and linguistically) and removed the italicized "additions" of the version he used as his foundation. One should not assume that Joseph's modification of Biblical material in the Book of Mormon would depart radically from other known instances of his modification of the Bible.

[_canpakes]

I suppose Skousen didn't mention an obvious alternative because Emma said specifically, shortly before her death, that her husband didn't use any book during the dictation...

Not one that Emma saw, anyway. In fact, no one was really a witness to the specifics of the translation, correct?

Smith's record of candidness with his own wife is not one of particularly high standards.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Not one that Emma saw, anyway. In fact, no one was really a witness to the specifics of the translation, correct?

Smith's record of candidness with his own wife is not one of particularly high standards.

I really think we ought to stop using the word 'translation' since Joseph Smith didn't translate crap. He either divined it or co-wrote. That's it.

- Doc

[_Maksutov]

Not one that Emma saw, anyway. In fact, no one was really a witness to the specifics of the translation, correct?

Smith's record of candidness with his own wife is not one of particularly high standards.

I really think we ought to stop using the word 'translation' since Joseph Smith didn't translate s***. He either divined it or co-wrote. That's it.

- Doc

He channeled the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, the D & C and the Kinderhook Plates. I've yet to see a channeled text that was found to be based on anything but imagination. It's "psychic" doubletalk dressed up in religious terms.

[_Lemmie]

We then throw in the fact that there are multiple voices speaking independently in the Book of Mormon. Whether you use Jockers, the BYU study, or the one done at Berkeley. This all comes together while Joseph has his head in a hat looking at a glowing rock.

This is simple desperation. First it is not a "FACT" that there are "multiple voices" coming from the Book of Mormon. It is simply somebody's speculation based on esoteric interpretation of data. And where is the evidence that the rock ever glowed? (There isn't any).

I'm also curious about this comment:

In my post to tkv I suggest that there may more to the translation process than meets the eye. Both critics and believers seem to beat around on the bush on this...along with the church essay...

Mg, What do you mean when you say that 'both critics and believers seem to beat around the bush' re: translation process? every critic here has been quite specific, can you provide a reference as to what you mean?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I really think we ought to stop using the word 'translation' since Joseph Smith didn't translate s***. He either divined it or co-wrote. That's it.

- Doc

He channeled the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, the D & C and the Kinderhook Plates. I've yet to see a channeled text that was found to be based on anything but imagination. It's "psychic" doubletalk dressed up in religious terms.

I don't think he did. Writing a novel is arduous, tough work... Even if you're cribbing other sources. I think he collaborated with OC to make money. Basically the Book of Mormon is the equivalent of any fantasy novel ripping off Lord of the Rings (Sword of Shannara comes to mind).

https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/commen ... _a_ripoff/