The Book of Mormon: Man-Made or God-Given?

[_Xenophon]

It does not account for the numerous written accounts of how the Book of Mormon was recorded, in that it allows for Joseph Smith to have the flexibility to select what language appeared (a point I believe Blake concedes).

That is a point that needs to be conceded. I don't see a problem with that. It's a modern text. Believers would go as far as to say, "It's written for our day." For us. If so, one would/could expect that the 'expansionist theory' would bring the ancient into the modern and the modern would also leave its 'fingerprint' on the text.

I think you are underselling the issue with Joseph being able to add in his own thoughts. When we look at the statements made by those familiar with the process it gets pretty hairy.

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.

To apply the expansionist theory while considering that quote you have to assume one of a couple of things:

1) The seer stone is following Joseph's whim, not God's

2) God is cool with Joseph's 19th century mindset in the Book of Mormon even though it isn't for just the 19th century

3) God was injecting the modern stuff into the ancient document and it just so happened to sound like 19th century thinking

[_Jersey Girl]

If it weren't for the chloroform, I'd have been just fine.

You're still here "amusing" yourself, I see.

I hope I'm playing a part in that?

Not even a minor part.

Just a tangential little "Hi there!"

Back at ya.

by the way, have you read the Book of Mormon all the way through and given it any consideration for being what it purports to be...rather than and/or other than going along lockstep with Twain?

Regards,
MG

Yes, I have read it all the way through. I even had a fairly well known apologist help me get started. When I read it, I used chapter summaries to supplement my reading.

Does that help?

You asked if I've ever given any consideration to what it purports to be. Yes, I have.

Oh wait, did you want to know the outcome of that consideration? Well, as you can see (or not) I don't post many criticisms of the Book of Mormon on this board. That's because I don't hold a goal of being complicit in disabusing anyone of their religious beliefs.

My conclusion remains the same as it was the very first time I was given a Book of Mormon more than 30 years ago, and opened it. My very first impression was that it was a poorly plagiarized imitation of the King James Version of the Holy Bible.

Only now I have more evidence to base that impression on besides just the words on the page.

Now ask me why I even bothered to read it all the way through.

[_Lemmie]

what is up with mentalgymnast? His last dozen posts, including the SIX in a row, his extreme flip-flopping in his opinion, and his weird mix-up with Xenophon's post and expansion theory have all just been bizarre. (Even for him. I hope he's not ill. Has anybody else noticed the difference?)

[_Xenophon]

what is up with mentalgymnast? His last dozen posts, including the SIX in a row, his extreme flip-flopping in his opinion, and his weird mix-up with Xenophon's post and expansion theory have all just been bizarre. (Even for him. I hope he's not ill. Has anybody else noticed the difference?)

In his defense he does say he is not feeling well, perhaps also taking cold medicine (that always throws me off), and is juggling about 3 different conversations in the thread.

I will say I don't think dragging Blake's theory into this thread was all that helpful to his position (mainly because I imagine Callister wouldn't accept the theory) but he also said he would need to go back and read up on it, so that may be where the disconnect is.

[_Lemmie]

what is up with mentalgymnast? His last dozen posts, including the SIX in a row, his extreme flip-flopping in his opinion, and his weird mix-up with Xenophon's post and expansion theory have all just been bizarre. (Even for him. I hope he's not ill. Has anybody else noticed the difference?)

In his defense he does say he is not feeling well, perhaps also taking cold medicine (that always throws me off), and is juggling about 3 different conversations in the thread.

I will say I don't think dragging Blake's theory into this thread was all that helpful to his position (mainly because I imagine Callister wouldn't accept the theory) but he also said he would need to go back and read up on it, so that may be where the disconnect is.

Thanks, Xenophon, that makes sense.

Re: Blake's theory, it is helpful to his new position though, which he's had for quite a while apparently, 48 hours or so.

[_Themis]

Yes you admitted you just decided to believe...

It wasn't simply on a lark...hey, I think I'll believe!

Doesn't work that way. Didn't work that way...for me, anyway.

Then again, you need to define "belief". There are folks...some right here in this neck of the woods...that tend towards over simplification and/or pigeon holing. They then look at others through very narrow lenses and say things that aren't true.

They make stuff up in one way or another.

I'll not take that any farther...unless forced to. I don't want to derail what I think has been a worthwhile thread. I've learned some stuff...it was worth sticking around. I think it is worth pointing out, however, that latter part of the thread has again stumbled into the 'pointing finger syndrome'. It gets rather cumbersome and disruptive to the conversation.

Regards,
MG

You brought it up, and you were the one to say you didn't have good answers for the problems but made a choice to believe. I haven't seen your posts showing you have a good knowledge of the issues from both sides.

[Guest]

FTR, Ostlers expansion theory has been rendered untenable by the Church's confirmation that Joseph read words off a rock....

(1) Those who write about the Book of Mormon in its ancient American setting necessarily adopt the expansion theory implicitly. (e.g., John Sorenson et al.) To make sense of the animals, plants, metals, weapons, directions and so forth mentioned in the Book of Mormon, we must assume that the words in the English are approximations or “conceptual translations” to make sense of what we know actually existed. For example, John Sorenson states: “In order to make sense [of animals identified in the Book of Mormon], we must consider a wide range of historical, linguistic and natural scientific information in search of clues to interpret the scripture’s statements…. But isn’t it ovious that the ‘cow’ of the Book of Mormon was our familiar bovine, straight out without all this hegding? No, it is not at all obvious. First, we are trying to figure out what the Book of Mormon really means by the words we have in English translation … Second, there is a lack of reliable evidence — historical, archaeological, zoological, or linguistic — that Old World cows were present in the Americas in pre-columbian times.” (AnAncient American Setting, 89, 294) Sorenson gives a long list of possible candidates for the animals mentioned in the Book of Mormon that were found in ancient America on p. 299-300. All of them are merely conceptual approximations. He does the same for metals, weapons, plants, compass directions and so forth listed in the Book of Mormon. My point is that to make sense of what we know from archaeology, paleo-botany, paleontology and so forth, we must assume that the Book of Mormon was translated rather loosely and was based on Joseph Smith’s conceptual abilities and horizons.

http://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive ... on-theory/

Whoops.

(2) To make sense of the text, we must accept that Joseph Smith was free to choose the language in which to express the translation. It is rather clear to me that the language chosen mirrors the KJV and adopts its phraseology and mode of expression throughout.

Hmmm, double whoops.

For completeness...

Most of the accounts speak of Joseph’s use of the Urim and Thummim (either the interpreters or the seer stone), and many accounts refer to his use of a single stone. According to these accounts, Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument.

Not much room in there for Blake Ostlers "Joseph was free to choose the language" or "translated rather loosely".

[_Themis]

We are left with the 'artifact'...and it is what it is, that is true. And yes, there are no plates/source material.

What does that have to do with the actual translation process and whether or not Joseph and/or others besides the original authors, were also involved in the project? That is, of course, on the assumption that there was a revelatory process occurring in the mix.

Regards,
MG

It's another indicator of a con job. With cons you want to eliminate as much evidence of the con as you can. The reason's given for why the world could not view the plates or be keep around don't make sense, and how the few who were supposed to have viewed them went down. Not very smart way to do a legitimate translation of actual ancient plates, but it fits a con job.

[Guest]

Not much room in there for Blake Ostlers "Joseph was free to choose the language" or "translated rather loosely".

Thanks for expanding further on my criticism from up thread. When you also throw in the Whitmer quote about not being able to proceed until the scribe had written exactly what was correct, you are left in a really awkward position with the loosey-goosey translation.

Honestly if Blake's theory works for him then great! But we shouldn't pretend that it fits neatly into the narrative that the LDS church puts forth.

[_I have a question]

Callister
“Joseph Smith [as a young man] could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter; let alone dictat[e] a book like the Book of Mormon.”32

Ostler
"the Book of Mormon was translated rather loosely and was based on Joseph Smith’s conceptual abilities and horizons."

In his OP MG presents Callister as it being the case "in a nutshell".
Later on in the same thread MG presents Ostler as being "what many of us believe" even though Ostlers and Callisters positions are mutually exclusive.

I can only conclude that MG is scratching around looking for something, anything upon which to hang his desire to have someone agree his belief in Mormonism is credible. I'm guessing the cog dis is loud and intrusive which is why he comes here to "throw stuff out there" to see if it passes the critical eye of this board and helps silence the discomforting noises. Given the absurdity of his scattergun and contradictory approach to presenting "what he believes", coupled with his descent into obstinace and dishonesty over time in threads where people don't just accept his musings at face value, I'd suggest it's not going so well for him.

I can't see any other reasoning around why and how and what he posts.