Joseph Smith wrote witnesses statement

why me · **Joined:** Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:19 pm **Posts:** 7968

Drifting wrote:

So when a number of them later claimed they only saw the plates spiritually, do you class that as supporting the statement?

I already commented about the spiritual eyes earlier on page two. The witnesses explained their story in many ways but no one ever contradicted the statement in the book of mormon. And spiritual eyes would go along with their experiences if one puts all their experiences in one basket: visions, book of mormon translation, supernatural powers coming to earth in visions etc. The spiritual eyes comment can be translated as a spiritual experience seen with the eyes.

Tobin · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:37 pm

lulu wrote:

Tobin wrote:

I'll let Marg respond to this, but you do realize that it was Joseph Smith that did the translation so it would have been in his words and a 19th century production as a result. I really don't understand the expectation that it would be anything other than that. The question is only if it was inspired or not and the Book of Mormon directly addresses that issue.

Do you realize that one can read a translation and determine the languages of the original and how many authors there were.
Does that work for the Book of Mormon?

We don't have the original. That would be nice. I wish TSM would ask for the plates back so the LDS Church could do a nice show and tell session on live news.

Tobin · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:43 pm

Chap wrote:

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. :lol:

Chap wrote:

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.

lulu · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:43 pm

Tobin wrote:

I'll let Marg respond to this, but you do realize that it was Joseph Smith that did the translation so it would have been in his words and a 19th century production as a result. I really don't understand the expectation that it would be anything other than that. The question is only if it was inspired or not and the Book of Mormon directly addresses that issue.

lulu wrote:

Do you realize that one can read a translation and determine the languages of the original and how many authors there were.
Does that work for the Book of Mormon?

Tobin wrote:

We don't have the original. That would be nice. I wish TSM would ask for the plates back so the LDS Church could do a nice show and tell session on live news.

That's not the point. If the BofM had mulitple authors as is claimed, it would show up in the translation. BYU profs have done word studies that say it does. Skousen says it doesn't.

Criddle says it does, but that those authors are Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon and Solomon Spalding. (I'm still holding out to include Emma in the list).

That's the point.

Tobin · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:52 pm

lulu wrote:

That's not the point. If the BofM had mulitple authors as is claimed, it would show up in the translation. Skousen says it doesn't.
Criddle says it does, but that those authors are Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon and Solomon Spalding. (I'm still holding out to include Emma in the list).
That's the point.

And you are missing my point. Joseph Smith didn't speak the language (nor know it), so how he translated it, which is really a poor term for it, is very much up in the air. He may very well have seen the events and described it in his own convoluted incorrect 17th century English style. Without the original and knowledge of the process he used, I don't find it a very compelling argument to make that his wording style and the wording style of the Book of Mormon should be different at all.

Drifting · **Joined:** Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:52 am **Posts:** 7308

Tobin wrote:

lulu wrote:

That's not the point. If the BofM had mulitple authors as is claimed, it would show up in the translation. Skousen says it doesn't.
Criddle says it does, but that those authors are Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon and Solomon Spalding. (I'm still holding out to include Emma in the list).
That's the point.

And you are missing my point. Joseph Smith didn't speak the language (nor know it), so how he translated it, which is really a poor term for it, is very much up in the air. He may very well have seen the events and described it in his own convoluted incorrect 17th century English style. Without the original and knowledge of the process he used, I don't find it a very compelling argument to make that his wording style (and the wording style) of the Book of Mormon should be different at all.

Do you know anything about Mormonism and its origins?
Anything at all?

God gave Joseph the words for the Book of Mormon one at a time.
The Book of Mormon should sound like ancient Hebrews.

Tobin · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:02 pm

Drifting wrote:

Do you know anything about Mormonism and its origins?
Anything at all?

God gave Joseph the words for the Book of Mormon one at a time.
The Book of Mormon should sound like ancient Hebrews.

Drifting, and just how many gold books of ancient origin have you translated by the gift and power of God? I think we'd all be very interested in your expertise in this area.

Drifting · **Joined:** Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:52 am **Posts:** 7308

Tobin wrote:

Drifting wrote:

Do you know anything about Mormonism and its origins?
Anything at all?

God gave Joseph the words for the Book of Mormon one at a time.
The Book of Mormon should sound like ancient Hebrews.

Drifting, and just how many gold books of ancient origin have you translated by the gift and power of God? I think we'd all be very interested in your expertise in this area.

I reckon about the same number as you.
So, shouldn't the Book of Mormon read like Hebrew given its origin and the exacting method by which it was transcribed?

Tobin · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:11 pm

Drifting wrote:

I reckon about the same number as you. So, shouldn't the Book of Mormon read like Hebrew given its origin and the exacting method by which it was transcribed?

Ah, but I'll at least admit I don't know how the translation process took place. It wasn't written in Hebrew. And Joseph Smith didn't know the language it was written in, so again - Joseph Smith's own words and style may be very consistent with the translation process he used. It is simply impossible to determine without having the original and knowing exactly how he accomplished it without knowing the language.

lulu · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:11 pm

Tobin wrote:

lulu wrote:

That's not the point. If the BofM had mulitple authors as is claimed, it would show up in the translation. Skousen says it doesn't.
Criddle says it does, but that those authors are Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon and Solomon Spalding. (I'm still holding out to include Emma in the list).
That's the point.

And you are missing my point. Joseph Smith didn't speak the language (nor know it), so how he translated it, which is really a poor term for it, is very much up in the air. He may very well have seen the events and described it in his own convoluted incorrect 17th century English style. Without the original and knowledge of the process he used, I don't find it a very compelling argument to make that his wording style and the wording style of the Book of Mormon should be different at all.

"Translated" is a word Joseph Smith used. But you're right, he also used "author."

But if you are going to to that route, then I think you have to engage directly with the word studies.

Ready?

Tobin · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:15 pm

lulu wrote:

Tobin wrote:

And you are missing my point. Joseph Smith didn't speak the language (nor know it), so how he translated it, which is really a poor term for it, is very much up in the air. He may very well have seen the events and described it in his own convoluted incorrect 17th century English style. Without the original and knowledge of the process he used, I don't find it a very compelling argument to make that his wording style and the wording style of the Book of Mormon should be different at all.

"Translated" is a word Joseph Smith used. But you're right, he also used "author."

But if you are going to to that route, then I think you have to engage directly with the word studies.

Ready?

Go nuts, but I still think you are missing my point. I'll explain it again after you do your "word studies" however.

Drifting · **Joined:** Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:52 am **Posts:** 7308

Tobin wrote:

Drifting wrote:

I reckon about the same number as you. So, shouldn't the Book of Mormon read like Hebrew given its origin and the exacting method by which it was transcribed?

Ah, but I'll at least admit I don't know how the translation process took place. It wasn't written in Hebrew. And Joseph Smith didn't know the language it was written in, so again - Joseph Smith's own words and style may be very consistent with the translation process he used. It is simply impossible to determine without having the original and knowing exactly how he accomplished it without knowing the language.

Now we are getting somewhere.
Go onto lds.org and look up "A Treasured Testament" which will educate you on how the translation took place.

lulu · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:21 pm

Tobin wrote:

Go nuts, but I still think you are missing my point. I'll explain it again after you do your "word studies" however.

Some of them have already been done. And none of them were mine.

Now, do you have a substantive comment to make about your position or Skousen's and the extant word studies?

Or do you want to talk about my nuts?

Tobin · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:23 pm

Drifting wrote:

Now we are getting somewhere. Go onto lds.org and look up "A Treasured Testament" which will educate you on how the translation took place.

Wow, you've got me now. :lol:

And how many Gold books has Elder Russell M. Nelson translated by the gift and power of God exactly? Actually, I'll answer that for you since I know him personally and he presided at my grandparent's funeral - ZERO!

Tobin · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:26 pm

lulu wrote:

Now, do you have a substantive comment to make about your position or Skousen's and the extant word studies?

If there is a point you are going to make any time in my future, I wish you'd get there. Until then, I'll say it again - we don't know the process Joseph Smith used to translate the Gold plates and so his choice of words and style may be very consistent with what we see in the Book of Mormon.

Drifting · **Joined:** Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:52 am **Posts:** 7308

Tobin wrote:

Drifting wrote:

Now we are getting somewhere. Go onto lds.org and look up "A Treasured Testament" which will educate you on how the translation took place.

Wow, you've got me now. :lol:

And how many Gold books has Elder Russell M. Nelson translated by the gift and power of God exactly? Actually, I'll answer that for you since I know him personally and he presided at my grandparent's funeral - ZERO!

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

Tobin · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:30 pm

Drifting wrote:

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!

lulu · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:30 pm

Tobin wrote:

lulu wrote:

Now, do you have a substantive comment to make about your position or Skousen's and the extant word studies?

If there is a point you are going to make any time in my future, I wish you'd get there. Until then, I'll say it again - we don't know the process Joseph Smith used to translate the Gold plates and so his choice of words and style may be very consistent with what we see in the Book of Mormon.

1. Joseph Smith claimed multiple authors
2. BYU word studies have shown multiple authors
3. Criddle shows multiple 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?

Drifting · **Joined:** Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:52 am **Posts:** 7308

Tobin wrote:

Drifting wrote:

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 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:43 pm

lulu wrote:

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 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:46 pm

Drifting wrote:

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.

Joseph Smith wrote witnesses statement

Who is online