|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Mormonism? - 2/1/2008 10:50:36 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 538
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
What is funny here, is that you make an assumption about something the rest of your post shows you know nothing about. I'm not going to preach my doctrine here, but at least get your "facts" correct
somemormonguy,
I've been away for a long while, so this post is long overdue. Let me begin by saying that I do have my facts correct. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever supporting anything that JS said or wrote.
quote:
Not even one sentence in, and already you make a mistake. It wasn't Hebrew, it was Egyptian. It says so on the VERY first page in the second verse. Obviously you find yourself entiled to make assumptions about a book you've clearly never read. I wonder what would happen if people took the same approach to the Bible? I'm not saying you have to believe, agree, or even tolerate it. Just be knowledgeable about the subject you are critiquing so no one can accuse you of ignorance.
Replying to the embolded statement is pointless because you made it long ago, but I am in the habit of engaging in pointless endeavors. You are assuming much by calling me ignorant. It behooves you to ask what I know before you make such accusations. I have read the BoM many times. I live in the Salt Lake Valley, and have studied the Mormon church for going on two decades - you can be assured I know what I am talking about. I am aware that according to Smith the Jewish immagrants didn't speak Hebrew. However, I am interested in dealing with reality not fantasy. You are wrong that they supposedly spoke Egyptian, according to Smith they spoke "Reformed Egyptian. There is simply no evidence in the historical record for any such language. while it is conceivable that the Jews also knew Egyptian, there is also no reason to believe that the Jews spoke anything other than their native tongue, especially a fictitious language.
quote:
No. Incorrect. Translation is impossible to perform perfectly. Do you know two or more languages like I do? It isn't easy, and it is impossible to produce a perfect translation. The Bible cannot even claim that, let the other shoe drop would you?
I am fully aware that no language can be translated directly into another, but your issue is not with me, it is with JS and his translation assistants. I did not relate my opinion of translation methods, I was only repeating what JS and his translation assistants said. That said, I am not incorrect about how they claim the BoM was translated. Read David Whitmers account of the translation process.
"Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling a parchment whould appear, and on that appeard the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. (An Address To All Believers In Christ" page 12)
Martin Harris also tells us that sentences would appear when Smith looked through the seer stone. Harris wrote what Smith read. The sentence would remain until it was recorded correctly, then another would appear in its place. Harris and Whitmer were two of the three witnesses whose account of seeing the gold plates are recorded in the opening pages of the BoM.
These accounts of the tranlation process are consistant with the following statement about the BoM:
"These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct. and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear." (Joseph Smith, "History of the Church" Volume 1, pages 54-44)
somemormonguy, the question you must answer is, "If you are correct that this method of translation cannot work, then are you agreeing that JS did not really translate from one language into another?
quote:
No. The IDEA had to be conveyed. The Book of Mormon could only be translated into the language that exsisted in Joseph's mind. David Whitmur had that same mentality as you do, which is why he had problems with Jospeh going back and doing grammer and spelling corrections. He assumed it was word for word, however, the idea or message was what needed to be conveyed, and the way Joseph phrased it was of secondary importance. This is made clear in the accounts given by Oliver Cowdry, and Martin Harris, and of course Jospeh himself.
Joseph and the church claim that the reason corrections had to be made was because the printer intentionally inserted errors into the publication (Joseph Fielding Smith, "The Improvement Era" pages 924-925). The did not claim that changes had to be made because of translation errors. In fact, because the Urim and Thummin were used to translate the BoM it would be impossible to claim that errors existed.
I don't know how long you have been on Crosswalk, but we don't put much stock in statements that are not backed up with evidence. Will you cite references for the claims by Cowdry and Harris that Joseph inserted his own phrasing into the translation and that these were of secondary importance?
quote:
Again, you don't understand the translation process. This only shows that the people who translated the Bible spoke in KJ english. The Hebrew must be changed (sometimes entire phrases must be re-worded because it doesn't exsit or is impossible to say in KJ english) so that the person reading it can understand it.
You seem to be missing my point. My point had nothing to do with the process of translating as such; my point is (as you said in your response), translations are made into the language of the translator. JS translated into a dialect that was not his own. Add to that the fact that large portions of the BoM are exact copies of sections of Old Testament books such as Isaiah. If as you say, JS translated the "Egyptian" using his own phrases, it is interesting that his own phrases were exact copies of the phrases and the language used by the King James translators, and that those phrases came from the translation of a completely different source than the Old Testament that supposedly were written in a completely different language than the OT. As you said, differing languages use different syntax, different styles, drawing on different cultural formations. While two differing languages can say the same thing, it is unlikely they will do so in such a way as to produce exactly the same interpretation, especially when that interpretation is the secondary phrase choices of the interpreter. It seem clear to me that your assertions are self-refuting.
quote:
Read my previous comments, you must concede then that the Bible translations are un-inspired. The New Testament alone contains more errors than there are words in it.
Again you miss the point. The point was that JS translated the book of Abraham from an egyptian funerary document. It is an incorrect, erroneous, false translation.
As for your argument, it is one thing to translate a Hebrew word like Shalome into different english words, like "peace" or "greetings," (Both translations are correct: "peace" is the actual transaltion, the other word, "greetings," translates how the word is used in Hebrew culture0 it is quite another thing to produce a translation in which the words and phrases do not reflect in any way the original.
quote:
Read my previous comments, you must concede then that the Bible translations are un-inspired. The New Testament alone contains more errors than there are words in it.
I don't have to concede anything. Your previous arguments are off point, and as I stated and referenced, your arguments are not grounded in fact. Again, talk is cheap. Must I admit that the New Testament has more errors that there are words, just because you say so. Maybe a few examples would add strength to your argument.
Either way, I find it interesting logic to claim that because JS is a false prophet who created fictitious documents about fictitious events, involving fictitious people, that somehow it proves the Bible is also uninspired. If you are still around, you might want to elaborate on that.
< Message edited by mushhead -- 2/1/2008 11:11:25 PM >
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mormonism? - 2/2/2008 8:49:04 AM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 538
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
Hi Mushhead!
Nice to see you here again.
Hey Crankius, thank you. It is good to be back among good friends who are also committed to Jesus.
quote:
Well, you've demonstrated you're incapable of rational thought...the very fact you've used the word cult shows that the rest of what you have to say is irrational because cult being applied to the Mormon church is irrational. In 58 pages of this terrible excuse for thought provoking discussion, the Mormon church has been repeatedly attacked, mis-represented, mis-understood, taken out of context, and/or falsified intentionally or out of ignorance. Again, I don't mind disagreement with my beliefs, but for crying out loud you people are making fools out of yourselves.
somemormonguy,
You have repeatedly claimed that people are making statements without offering any proof. I ask you to live by your own standards and provide examples of where the mormon church has been repeatedly misrepresented, misunderstood, taken out of context, and/or falsified intentionally or out of ignorance. Please don't just cite some statement that you disagree with, instead provide details that explain how it is wrong.
< Message edited by mushhead -- 2/2/2008 11:23:00 AM >
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mormonism? - 2/2/2008 1:28:40 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 538
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
You applied them incorrectly. James 2:24, explicitly teaches that faith alone is NOT sufficient for salvation: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." The Greek phrase ouk ek pistewV monon means "not by faith alone." This is what the Bible teaches: salvation by "faith alone" directly and explicitly contradicts the New Testament, which says that salvation is NOT by faith alone. Faith without works is dead (James 2:17), and if dead, it is clearly not sufficient for salvation. In fact, even Paul states that even if he had "all faith" but lacked charity, he would be nothing (1 Cor. 13:3), and concludes that among faith, hope, and charity, charity is the greatest (1 Cor. 13:13). The idea that faith alone is sufficient is simply not what the Bible teaches. Now show me where I'm wrong.
somemormonguy,
You are in serious error when you claim that James 2:24 explicitly teaches that faith alone is not sufficient for salvation, and that "faith alone" explicitly contradicts the NT.
Ephesians 2:8-9 says:
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast."
Notice that this passage reveals that we are saved by "grace." Grace and mercy are not the same, but they are very similar. Grace can be defined as: God giving us what we do not deserve; where as "Mercy" is defined as: God not giving us what we do deserve." God gave us what we do not deserve when He gave us salvation. God tells us in Ephesians that this salvation we do not deserve is offered to us by God's grace. Because grace is by definition something we do not deserve, it is something that is not earned. If it were earned then salvation would be something we do deserve. Salvation offered to us by God's grace, is by necessity a gift. In fact God says this very thing in Romans 6:23:
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
God tells us in Romans 6:23 (above) and John 1:17 (to name just two sources) that his grace - this gift of eternal life (salvation) - comes through Jesus Christ.
"For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."
Returning to our passage in Ephesians 2:8-9 we see God telling us that salvation (eternal life, everlasting life) that comes by God's grace, a grace that is expressed in Jesus, is accessed through faith. "...We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ."
The fact that salvation is accessed by faith is further supported by Jesus' own words:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God
." (John 3:16-18)
Notice that Jesus not only says that whosever believes has eternal life, in verse 18 He also tells us that not believing results in condemnation.
A question we must answer is, "Are works also a requirment for salvation (eternal life)? The answer is no! In the book of Romans, God tells us that faith and works are mutually exclusive because a salvation aquired through works, would be earned as opposed to being a gift offered by God's grace; a grace that by defintion cannot be earned.
"And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace." (Romans 11:6)
"4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." (Romans 4:4-5)
Notice that in this passage, God tells us that he justifies the wicked when they trust in Him rather than attempting to earn it.
We also read God reinforcing the fact that salvation is obtained through faith in Jesus and that works have no part in the process.
"What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Romans 4:1-3)
So, as you can see God is clear, eternal life, salvation, justification comes through faith in Jesus alone, and works have no part whatsoever.
One last passage, Romans 3:19-22 tells us that no one will be declared rightous through obedience to the law. Rather the law makes us conscious of our sin. Then God tells us that a rightousness apart from the law is available, and this righteousness, which is spoken of in Old Testament, is through faith in Jesus Christ.
How do we reconcile this with James 2:24 that says we are justified by works and not faith alone. I don't have time to explain James' meaning (hopefully someone else will). Let me just say that if you read the passage in context you will see that James is not talking about the method of salvation. Rather he is teaching about the nature of authentic faith in Jesus. In the time I have left, let me offer some evidence that James is not teaching that we are saved through works. James offers some examples to illustrate his statement in verse 24. For the sake of brevity, let us look at Abraham and Isaac. It says that when Abraham nearly offered Isaac on the alter, the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness." If you go back and read the account of Abraham in Genesis, you will discover that God declared Abraham righteous because he believed God. This declaration took place somewhere between 15 and 25 years before the event with Isaac. James says that by being obedient and offering Isaac, Abraham's faith was made complete. However, if you read Genesis, you will discover that this particular act of obedience was not the first time Abraham's actions reflected his faith in God. So why did James say that Isaac's offering fulfilled the scripture? Could it be that this event is a poignant example of Abraham's belief. You see, God did not need evidence of Abraham's faith, but we - you, me, and everyone around us - can know that Abraham's faith was real by this very powerful example of faith in action. So Abraham was justified by his works, not before God, but in the eyes of man. Whatever else this passage implies, it does not imply that salvation is also by works and it certianly does not demonstrate that "faith alone" is contradictory to the rest of the NT.
< Message edited by mushhead -- 2/2/2008 1:36:31 PM >
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mormonism? - 2/2/2008 1:36:48 PM
|
|
|
gaylel1
Posts: 1414
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Southern California, the land of Fruit and nuts...
Status: offline
|
I wonder why the lights are turned off when someone of the church speaks? I'm watching President Hinkley's funeral (and yes, Romney made an apperance there) and it is a "dead" occasion. The Mormon faith is a "dead" faith because folks are decived through the gospel of Joseph Smith, or as they say, "Another Testiment of Jesus Christ", which would have changed to an heresey of Jesus Christ.
I'ts a shame that many in the christian faith too is buying into this too.
_____________________________
Remembering Topher...
Visit me at http:www.gayleplace.blogspot.com or http://www.myspace.com/gaylel121
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mormonism? - 2/2/2008 2:29:02 PM
|
|
|
Ephesians4_32
Posts: 1795
Joined: 4/30/2005
From: The Crossroads of America
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: somemormonguy
quote:
ORIGINAL: mushhead
If these events were true (obviously they are not)
What is funny here, is that you make an assumption about something the rest of your post shows you know nothing about.
There is a difference here. Mushhead made one mistake and you jump to the conclusion that he knows nothing about Mormonism. That is a far stretch. Many LDS/Mormons themselves do not know Mormonism 100%. Even Gordon B. Hinckley didn't remember all he had learned and taught about Mormonism:
"Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"
"I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it." - Gordon B. Hinckley, Time Magazine, August 4, 1997
"Don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?"
"I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, 'As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.' Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about." - Gordon B. Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997, p 3/Z1
Maybe he conveniently forgot what he taught the LDS in 1994:
"On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342-62); and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become!" - Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, General Conference, October 1994
quote:
ORIGINAL: somemormonguy
I'm not going to preach my doctrine here, but at least get your "facts" correct.
quote:
ORIGINAL: mushhead
then these stories would be written in their native tongue, which is Hebrew
Not even one sentence in, and already you make a mistake. It wasn't Hebrew, it was Egyptian. It says so on the VERY first page in the second verse. Obviously you find yourself entiled to make assumptions about a book you've clearly never read. I wonder what would happen if people took the same approach to the Bible? I'm not saying you have to believe, agree, or even tolerate it. Just be knowledgeable about the subject you are critiquing so no one can accuse you of ignorance.
THE FIRST BOOK OF NEPHI
HIS REIGN AND MINISTRY
An account of Lehi and his wife Sariah and his four sons, being called, (beginning at the eldest) Laman, Lemuel, Sam, and Nephi. The Lord warns Lehi to depart out of the land of Jerusalem, because he prophesieth unto the people concerning their iniquity and they seek to destroy his life. He taketh three days’ journey into the wilderness with his family. Nephi taketh his brethren and returneth to the land of Jerusalem after the record of the Jews. The account of their sufferings. They take the daughters of Ishmael to wife. They take their families and depart into the wilderness. Their sufferings and afflictions in the wilderness. The course of their travels. They come to the large waters. Nephi’s brethren rebel against him. He confoundeth them, and buildeth a ship. They call the name of the place Bountiful. They cross the large waters into the promised land, and so forth. This is according to the account of Nephi; or in other words, I, Nephi, wrote this record.
CHAPTER 1
Nephi begins the record of his people—Lehi sees in vision a pillar of fire and reads from a book of prophecy—He praises God, foretells the coming of the Messiah, and prophesies the destruction of Jerusalem—He is persecuted by the Jews. About 600 B.C.
1 I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.
2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.
scriptures.lds.org
Now if you're going to accuse mushhead of ignorance, you ought to also accuse Gordon B. Hinckley of ignorance.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mormonism? - 2/2/2008 4:57:58 PM
|
|
|
somemormonguy
Posts: 16
Joined: 12/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever supporting anything that JS said or wrote.
Nothing? That is simply not true and you know it.
quote:
Replying to the embolded statement is pointless because you made it long ago, but I am in the habit of engaging in pointless endeavors. You are assuming much by calling me ignorant.
YOU assume much by dismissing everything Joseph wrote as lies, ignorant ramblings, etc...
quote:
I am aware that according to Smith the Jewish immagrants didn't speak Hebrew. However, I am interested in dealing with reality not fantasy. You are wrong that they supposedly spoke Egyptian, according to Smith they spoke "Reformed Egyptian. There is simply no evidence in the historical record for any such language. while it is conceivable that the Jews also knew Egyptian, there is also no reason to believe that the Jews spoke anything other than their native tongue, especially a fictitious language.
Joseph did say that. However, Mormon tells us that "the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, [were] handed down and altered by us" and that "none other people knoweth our language" (Mormon 9:32, 34). First we should emphasize that Mormon is describing Egyptian characters, or what we today would call a script or writing system. It is the form or shape of the characters or symbols that was altered by the Nephites. Nephite reformed Egyptian is thus a unique script. It derived from the Egyptian writing systems but then was modified and adapted to suit Nephite language and writing materials.
The fact that modern linguists and philologists don't know of a script known as reformed Egyptian is irrelevant, since Mormon tells us that the script was called reformed Egyptian "by us," that is, by the Nephites, they may have been the only people to use that descriptive phrase. For example, both the terms cuneiform and hieroglyphics are non-Egyptian terms for the scripts of ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. ( The term cuneiform was first used in the nineteenth century, while hieroglyphics was the Greek term for the Egyptian writing system.) The Mesopotamians did not call their writing system cuneiform, nor did the Egyptians call their writing system hieroglyphics. (W. V. Davies, Egyptian Hieroglyphics (London: British Museum Publications, 1987).) We would not insist that the Mesopotamians and Egyptians never existed because they did not call their writing systems by the same names used by modern historians, philologists, and archaeologists.
So yeah, I don't know what you were trying to do with that argument, to assume that a written language can't change during a period of a thousand years is just ridiculous. Ever take an English literature class in collage? Ever read Beowulf, Chaucer?
quote:
I am fully aware that no language can be translated directly into another, but your issue is not with me, it is with JS and his translation assistants. I did not relate my opinion of translation methods, I was only repeating what JS and his translation assistants said. That said, I am not incorrect about how they claim the BoM was translated. Read David Whitmers account of the translation process.
"Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling a parchment whould appear, and on that appeard the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. (An Address To All Believers In Christ" page 12)
Martin Harris also tells us that sentences would appear when Smith looked through the seer stone. Harris wrote what Smith read. The sentence would remain until it was recorded correctly, then another would appear in its place. Harris and Whitmer were two of the three witnesses whose account of seeing the gold plates are recorded in the opening pages of the BoM.
Now, did you skim my post or did you really read it? What did I say about David Whitmur? His thinking was flawed. But I guess I should have given some reasons why, so thats my bad:
Joseph's hesitation to speak in detail about the translation process is reflected in his response to his brother Hyrum's request at a conference held in Orange, Ohio in October 1831 that he provide a first-hand account concerning the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. The Prophet replied that "it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the book of Mormon and . . . it was not expedient for him to relate these things." ("Minutes of a General Conference held at the dwelling of br. Serenes Burnet in the Town of Orange, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, October 25, 1836," Far West Record, p. 13 = Joseph Smith, op. cit. I:220, note.)
His reluctance was probably well justified and may have been due to the inordinate interest which some of the early Saints had shown in the seer stone or to the negative and sometimes bitter reactions he encountered when he had reported some of his sacred experiences to others. (Richard van Wagoner and Steven Waliler, "Joseph Smith: 'The Gift of Seeing'," Dialogue 15:2 (1982), 57.)
Other witnesses to the translation of the Book of Mormon were more explicit and detailed in their description of the process, providing us with considerable additional insight into the means which the Prophet used in completing the translation of the Book of Mormon as well as the method he employed.
Now, with reference to both Martin Harris and David Whitmur, several things argue against their explanation of the translation process:
1) Neither David Whitmer nor Martin Harris had knowledge of the method of translation of the Book of Mormon from personal experience while Joseph himself seems to have given only the most general outline of the process. Thus, their notions concerning the translation probably derive as much from the inerrantist preconceptions concerning Holy Writ which were common at the time and in which they doubtless shared as from and primary experience which they may have had with the translation. David Whitmur himself never translated as I'm sure you know.
2) In D & C 9:7–8 Oliver Cowdery, who had desired the gift of translation was told: "Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right." Had Oliver presumed an effortless automatic translation? These verses suggest that effort was required on the part of the translator to search for and find the appropriate expression, something which would not have been the case if the Book of Mormon had been translated by plenary dictation.
3) As I said in the first post, the numerous changes made in 1837 by Joseph Smith in the second edition of the Book of Mormon (mostly of a grammatical nature) also argue strongly against the idea that he rendered it into English by automatic translation. If he had, then he would certainly have considered the text inviolate and refrained from making any changes.
4) A contemporary account provides an additional indication that the process of translation was not mere plenary dictation. The Reverend Diedrich Willers, a minister of German Reformed Church congregations in Bearytown and Fayette, New York at the time of the Church's restoration and a celebrated opponent of the Church, wrote in 1830 to two colleagues in York, Pennsylvania concerning the rise of the Church. In the letter he included the following concerning the coming forth of the Book of Mormon: "The Angel indicated that . . . under these plates were hidden spectacles, without which he could not translate these plates, that by using these spectacles, he (Smith) would be in a position to read these ancient languages, which he had never studied and that the Holy Ghost would reveal to him the translation in the English language." (D. Michael Quinn, "The First Months of Mormonism: A Contemporary View by Reverend Diedrich Willers," New York History 54 (1973) 326.) On this, D. Michael Quinn comments: "Thus, the English translation with all its awkwardness and grammatical chaos, was according to contemporary reports, a product of spiritual impressions to Joseph Smith rather than an automatic appearance of the English words. This would make Joseph Smith, despite his grammatical limitations, a translator in fact rather than a mere transcriber of the handwriting of God." (Ibid., p. 321.)
quote:
These accounts of the tranlation process are consistant with the following statement about the BoM:
"These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct. and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear." (Joseph Smith, "History of the Church" Volume 1, pages 54-44)
No they're not as I've outlined above. I even used the standard works, so...
quote:
somemormonguy, the question you must answer is, "If you are correct that this method of translation cannot work, then are you agreeing that JS did not really translate from one language into another?
I've ALWAYS said that the idea that David Whitmur and Martin Harris had regarding translation does not even agree with the revelaions contained in the D&C. Their reasoning was flawed.
quote:
Joseph and the church claim that the reason corrections had to be made was because the printer intentionally inserted errors into the publication (Joseph Fielding Smith, "The Improvement Era" pages 924-925).
True, and this prevented Joseph from making his own grammatical errors...how exactly? You are free to go and buy an 1830 copy of the BOM to see for yourself. You are talking like the church has something to hide.
quote:
The did not claim that changes had to be made because of translation errors. In fact, because the Urim and Thummin were used to translate the BoM it would be impossible to claim that errors existed.
Did you not read a word I said? A PERFECT TRANSLATION IS IMPOSSIBLE. For example:
"ware sorraful" in 1 Nephi 7:20 was changed to "were sorrowful." The idea was conveyed, the correct rendering was not.
Many of the changes are due to the fact that the Book of Mormon was dictated to scribes without punctuation and without division between verses and chapter - just as one might expect from a fairly direct translation of an ancient Hebraic or Semitic text, written without punctuation. The lack of punctuation in the original required much work after dictation to put it in a presentable form - but that work was not done to cover up mistakes in the original and did not involve changing stories, doctrine, or anything else of substance. Numerous minor errors were printed in the original 1830 edition because of errors in preparing handwritten printer's manuscripts from the original manuscript, and because of additional printing errors.
quote:
I don't know how long you have been on Crosswalk, but we don't put much stock in statements that are not backed up with evidence. Will you cite references for the claims by Cowdry and Harris that Joseph inserted his own phrasing into the translation and that these were of secondary importance?
The D&C trumps anything David Whitmur and Martin Harris said.
quote:
You seem to be missing my point. My point had nothing to do with the process of translating as such
What? Nothing to do with the process? 
quote:
my point is (as you said in your response), translations are made into the language of the translator. JS translated into a dialect that was not his own.
You're right, translated ancient scripture should sound like a Western New York farmer from the early 1800's was speaking. Makes it more "real." I wonder how much more accepting you would be if Joseph decided to write it that way...And seriously, what are you complaining about? You don't believe the BOM to be divinly inspired anyways, so OBVIOUSLY this type of language exsited in his mind. Sorry, kind of silly.
quote:
it is interesting that his own phrases were exact copies of the phrases and the language used by the King James translators, and that those phrases came from the translation of a completely different source than the Old Testament that supposedly were written in a completely different language than the OT.
I could go into all that, but I don't have the time, and I still can't figure out what you were trying to say even after reading that sentance for the 20th time. In fact, I was going to finish replying, but I've got a Milwaukee Wave game to go to with some friends. I'm pretty bored anyhow with doing this. I'll finish later, or maybe not. Depends how you respond to what I've written so far. Bye.
EDIT: TO CORRECT SPELLING AND DELETE SOME SNIDE REMARKS. SORRY. WAVE GAME WAS GOOD BTW. AND I ATE AT THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY. ANYONE EVER HEARD OF IT? IT'S SO GOOD. I'M GOING TO BED NOW. GOOD NIGHT!
< Message edited by somemormonguy -- 2/3/2008 12:55:44 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mormonism? - 2/2/2008 4:59:38 PM
|
|
|
somemormonguy
Posts: 16
Joined: 12/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gaylel1
I wonder why the lights are turned off when someone of the church speaks? I'm watching President Hinkley's funeral (and yes, Romney made an apperance there) and it is a "dead" occasion. The Mormon faith is a "dead" faith because folks are decived through the gospel of Joseph Smith, or as they say, "Another Testiment of Jesus Christ", which would have changed to an heresey of Jesus Christ.
I'ts a shame that many in the christian faith too is buying into this too.
I'm sorry, I have to respond to this..................................................................
What in the world are you talking about? Talk about just downright weird reasoning.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mormonism? - 2/2/2008 8:29:46 PM
|
|
|
gaylel1
Posts: 1414
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Southern California, the land of Fruit and nuts...
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: somemormonguy
quote:
ORIGINAL: gaylel1
I wonder why the lights are turned off when someone of the church speaks? I'm watching President Hinkley's funeral (and yes, Romney made an apperance there) and it is a "dead" occasion. The Mormon faith is a "dead" faith because folks are decived through the gospel of Joseph Smith, or as they say, "Another Testiment of Jesus Christ", which would have changed to an heresey of Jesus Christ.
I'ts a shame that many in the christian faith too is buying into this too.
I'm sorry, I have to respond to this..................................................................
What in the world are you talking about? Talk about just downright weird reasoning.
I knew that this would cause a reaction, but there are people who do not think this is "weird reasoning" because they are defending their theirfaithas far as this book and this religions are full of errors.
Just as you defending your faith, our faith requires that we have to give an answer (1st peter 3:15).
_____________________________
Remembering Topher...
Visit me at http:www.gayleplace.blogspot.com or http://www.myspace.com/gaylel121
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mormonism? - 2/3/2008 6:30:47 AM
|
|
|
blue1914
Posts: 415
Joined: 6/21/2005
Status: offline
|
Hello Somemormonguy:
I was really looking forward to you answering the questions I asked about you faith because it does create a foundation to answer your question (which of my beliefs is against the bible). I do hope you will return and do so.
That said, in reading your apologetic for the truth of Mormon writings, one thing struck me throughout (I guess I've never seen an apologetic like this for Mormon writings and doctrine)-to put it plainly in schoolyard terms "tie goes to the runner" - if there is something that cannot be logically explained, it appears the Mormon faith chalks that up to the shroud of secrecy and "you must have faith".
An example-reformed Egyptian "does not exist" in any form any more so conveniently, if we find no evidence of it, we never would anyway. JS never explicitly talked about the way he translated the BoM and everyone around him who did really didn't know what they were talking about anyway so there is no reliable info on that either. If you re-read your post, I wonder if you see the same thing.
The bible, on the other hand, has never had a credible piece of archaeological evidence to refute the stories told within it-every peice found SUPPORTS the bible account-while we don't have them all, we have enough that we can point to credible pieces of factual archaeological evidence that support the book. If that's the standard God set for one of his Holy works (the Bible), wouldn't He set it for any further works if they were to come (this is saying that the BoM is considered the words of God)?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mormonism? - 2/4/2008 10:15:28 AM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 6504
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blue1914
quote:
ORIGINAL: somemormonguy
And once again, I am being told my beliefs are completly foreign to the Bible. What do you know about it? Show me where.
Hello somemormonguy, I'd like to ask you a few questions about this one statement you made before I go on to some of the other statements you have made:
First and foremost, the only way to start to answer it is to ask in total what your personal beliefs are-so to that end, can you answer the following questions (I don't mean to answer a question with a question, but without this information, I cannot answer your question as your beliefs are material to the answer you seek).
Please answer according to your own belief:
1. Who is Jesus - is He a created being, is He eternally God, does He have brothers and sisters?
2. Who is God - is He a created being, is he eternally God (always was, always will be), was He ever a man? Does He have brothers and sisters? Does He have a mother and a father?
3. Who is the Holy Ghost - is He a corporeal being? Was He created? Does He have brothers and sisters?
4. Is it possible for families to "reassemble" in heaven for all eternity?
5. Is it possible for man to ever become a god (little g) of His own planet?
6. If number 5 is yes, what are the requirements for a man to become a god of his own planet.
In terms of basics, these are the minimum levels of understanding necessary to proceed with answering the other questions you have asked. I look forward to hearing your responses, thanks!
Legitimate requests, why no response?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mormonism? - 2/4/2008 10:28:08 AM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 5732
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where pigeons are getting their sweaters ready....
Status: offline
|
Also no response to the few samples of failed prophecies spoken by Joseph Smith. I know he has a lot to respond to and he busy with classes, so I will continue to wait.
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mormonism? - 2/4/2008 5:58:17 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 538
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
somemormonguy:
quote:
mushhead:
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever supporting anything that JS said or wrote.
Nothing? That is simply not true and you know it.
Again, words are cheap. If you have evidence that definitively proves anything JS wrote in the BoM, please provide it.
quote:
quote: somemormonguy
quote:
quote: Mushhead
Replying to the embolded statement is pointless because you made it long ago, but I am in the habit of engaging in pointless endeavors. You are assuming much by calling me ignorant.
YOU assume much by dismissing everything Joseph wrote as lies, ignorant ramblings, etc...
I don't assume much. My conclusions are based on the very real fact that JS tells of vast societies and grand architecture. Yet archeologists can find no evidence whatsoever that supports any part of JS's story. Imagine reading about the Roman Empire but finding no evidence of its existance.
quote:
quote: somemormonguy
quote:
quote: mushhead:
I am aware that according to Smith the Jewish immagrants didn't speak Hebrew. However, I am interested in dealing with reality not fantasy. You are wrong that they supposedly spoke Egyptian, according to Smith they spoke "Reformed Egyptian. There is simply no evidence in the historical record for any such language. while it is conceivable that the Jews also knew Egyptian, there is also no reason to believe that the Jews spoke anything other than their native tongue, especially a fictitious language.
Joseph did say that. However, Mormon tells us that "the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, [were] handed down and altered by us" and that "none other people knoweth our language" (Mormon 9:32, 34). First we should emphasize that Mormon is describing Egyptian characters, or what we today would call a script or writing system. It is the form or shape of the characters or symbols that was altered by the Nephites. Nephite reformed Egyptian is thus a unique script. It derived from the Egyptian writing systems but then was modified and adapted to suit Nephite language and writing materials.
The fact that modern linguists and philologists don't know of a script known as reformed Egyptian is irrelevant, since Mormon tells us that the script was called reformed Egyptian "by us," that is, by the Nephites, they may have been the only people to use that descriptive phrase. For example, both the terms cuneiform and hieroglyphics are non-Egyptian terms for the scripts of ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. ( The term cuneiform was first used in the nineteenth century, while hieroglyphics was the Greek term for the Egyptian writing system.) The Mesopotamians did not call their writing system cuneiform, nor did the Egyptians call their writing system hieroglyphics. (W. V. Davies, Egyptian Hieroglyphics (London: British Museum Publications, 1987).) We would not insist that the Mesopotamians and Egyptians never existed because they did not call their writing systems by the same names used by modern historians, philologists, and archaeologists.
So yeah, I don't know what you were trying to do with that argument, to assume that a written language can't change during a period of a thousand years is just ridiculous. Ever take an English literature class in collage? Ever read Beowulf, Chaucer?
(Emphasis mine)
Thanks for the lesson in language development, but nothing in my post suggested that languages don't develop. My point was very simple: there is absolutely no archeological or historical evidence that such a language existed. Just because languages evolve over time does not prove that reformed egyptian was among them.
quote:
quote: somemormonguy:
quote:
quote: mushhead:
I am fully aware that no language can be translated directly into another, but your issue is not with me, it is with JS and his translation assistants. I did not relate my opinion of translation methods, I was only repeating what JS and his translation assistants said. That said, I am not incorrect about how they claim the BoM was translated. Read David Whitmers account of the translation process.
"Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling a parchment whould appear, and on that appeard the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. (An Address To All Believers In Christ" page 12)
Martin Harris also tells us that sentences would appear when Smith looked through the seer stone. Harris wrote what Smith read. The sentence would remain until it was recorded correctly, then another would appear in its place. Harris and Whitmer were two of the three witnesses whose account of seeing the gold plates are recorded in the opening pages of the BoM.
Now, did you skim my post or did you really read it? What did I say about David Whitmur? His thinking was flawed. But I guess I should have given some reasons why, so thats my bad:
Your response is long, therefore I will respond to it in sections:
quote:
Joseph's hesitation to speak in detail about the translation process is reflected in his response to his brother Hyrum's request at a conference held in Orange, Ohio in October 1831 that he provide a first-hand account concerning the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. The Prophet replied that "it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the book of Mormon and . . . it was not expedient for him to relate these things." ("Minutes of a General Conference held at the dwelling of br. Serenes Burnet in the Town of Orange, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, October 25, 1836," Far West Record, p. 13 = Joseph Smith, op. cit. I:220, note.) His reluctance was probably well justified and may have been due to the inordinate interest which some of the early Saints had shown in the seer stone or to the negative and sometimes bitter reactions he encountered when he had reported some of his sacred experiences to others. (Richard van Wagoner and Steven Waliler, "Joseph Smith: 'The Gift of Seeing'," Dialogue 15:2 (1982), 57.)
Joseph may have been mostly silent about the process, however his scribes and closest associates were not. Also, as you well know, JS said the BoM was the most perfect book in the world (citation provided numerous times on this thread), which causes us to wander why the most perfect book in the world needed correction.
quote:
Other witnesses to the translation of the Book of Mormon were more explicit and detailed in their description of the process, providing us with considerable additional insight into the means which the Prophet used in completing the translation of the Book of Mormon as well as the method he employed.
Yes, they did provide us an account - two of which I provided in my post.
quote:
Now, with reference to both Martin Harris and David Whitmur, several things argue against their explanation of the translation process:
1) Neither David Whitmer nor Martin Harris had knowledge of the method of translation of the Book of Mormon from personal experience while Joseph himself seems to have given only the most general outline of the process. Thus, their notions concerning the translation probably derive as much from the inerrantist preconceptions concerning Holy Writ which were common at the time and in which they doubtless shared as from and primary experience which they may have had with the translation. David Whitmur himself never translated as I'm sure you know.
Whitmer did not personally participate in the translation, but he did witness the process. Oliver Cowdry was the primary translation assistant, however Martin Harris was one of the translation assistants, as was JS's wife, Emma. As for your explanation of Whitmer's and Harris' accounts: you are not addressing the issue I raised. You addressed what you think was their views concerning translations. I however, quoted what each said they witnessed. Their beliefs are not relevant, for they were describing what took place, not what they believed about translations.
quote:
2) In D & C 9:7–8 Oliver Cowdery, who had desired the gift of translation was told: "Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right." Had Oliver presumed an effortless automatic translation? These verses suggest that effort was required on the part of the translator to search for and find the appropriate expression, something which would not have been the case if the Book of Mormon had been translated by plenary dictation.
This passage does not necessarily say anything about the process of translation used by JS. Remember that according to Mormon doctrine the seer stones were not required to translate or to receive revelation. JS provided at least one translation (Book of Abraham) and bunches of revelation without the stones. Additionally, the D&C passage you cited declares that revelation can be discerned apart from the use of the stones. This stronly suggests that according to Mormon doctrine, revelation is received two ways: 1-through indirect revelation(spiritual perception) which is discerned to be truthful through prayer, study, and contemplation; 2- through direct revelation by use of the seer stones, that is unmistakable and used for the inexperienced seer. JS was by his own description inexperienced and needed to use the stones. His use of the stones tells us that he was using a method that did not require study and contemplation to understand the revelation. This conclusion is why I mentioned in my previous post that the use of the stones confirms a process similar to that described by Harris and Martin.
This raises some interesting questions: Why does the introduction to the subject matter of D&C 9 suggests that the BoM was produced through study and spiritual confirmation? Why does this explanation contradict that of Orson Hyde (an apostle in the LDS church) included in a pamphlet he wrote entitled, A Cry From the Wilderness, A Voice From the Dust of the Earth.
"These were used in the following manner: These two stones, called Urim and Thummim, in diameter the size of an English crown (coin) only a little thicker, were placed where all light was excluded. The persons using these offered their prayers to the Lord, and the answer became visible, written in letters of light on the Urim and Thummim, but disappeared again soon after. Thus: 'The light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.' In this manner the sacred records were translated into English."
("An Analysis of the Accounts Relating Joseph Smith's Early Visions"; Graduate Thesis Paul Cheesman, for School of Religious Instruction at BYU)
Another question is whose version of the tranlation account is correct? And Is there reason to question why the church would give conflicting accounts?
The following are some additional accounts of how the BoM was translated:
"Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say, "Written," and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used." (Myth of the Manuscript Found, Juvenile Instructor, page 91)
"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us." ( History of the RLDS Church, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," 3:356)
The following quote is another from the Juvenile Instructor article "Myth of the Manuscript Found" (page 73) that directly contradicts the description offered in the D&C 9:
"But at the outset it must be recollected that the translation was accomplished by no common method, by no ordinary means. It was done by divine aid. There were no delays over obscure passages, no difficulties over the choice of words, no stoppages from the ignorance of the translator; no time was wasted in investigation or argument over the value, intent or meaning of certain characters, and there were no references to authorities."
So why do the witnesses, subsequent Mormon leaders, and Mormon publications tell a different story than described in the D&C? Any answer would be nothing more than speculation, and God commands us not to speculate on the motives of others. What we can do is explore the history of JS to see what most likely took place. History after all is a powerful, if not the best, interpreter of history.
First let us look at JS. What was his history? If we study the period prior to his supposed visitations we begin to see a troubling pattern of behavior:
1- JS practiced divination by which he offered to lead people to buried treasure, water, and lost property through placing a seer stone in a hat, then burying his head in the hat to receive guidance.
"I first became acquainted with Joseph Smith, Jr. in November, 1825. He was at that time in the employ of a set of men who were called 'money -diggers;' and his occupation was that of seeing, or pretending to see by means of a stone placed in his hat, and his hat closed over his face...." (Isaac Hale, The Susquehanna Register, May 1, 1834)
JS was also arrested and tried on the charge of being a disorderly person and an imposter as the result of his treasure hunting. The following is a portion of the trial transcript:
"People of State of New York vs. Joseph Smith. Warrant issued upon oath of Peter G. Bridgman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an impostor. Prisoner brought into court March 20 (1826). Prisoner examined. Says that he came from town of Palmyra, and had been at the house of Josiah Stowell in Bainbridge most of time since; had small part of time been employed in looking for mines, but the major part had been employed by said Stowel on his farm, and going to school; that he had a certain stone, which he had occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold-mines were a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel several times, and informed him where he could find those treasures, and Mr. Stowel had been engaged in digging for them: that at Palmyra he pretended to tell, by looking at this stone, where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania, and while at Palmyra he had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was, of various kinds; that he had occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of late had pretty much given it up on account its injuring his health, especially his eyes--made them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always rather declined having any thing to do with this business;.." (New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. 2, p. 1576) (Fraser's Magazine, Feb. 1973, p. 229)
Joseph was reportedly found guilty and rather than jailing him, his sentence was to leave Bainbridge. Smith's method of divination is virtually identical to the method his assistants (and others) tell us he used to translate the BoM. Also, if you read the accounts you will discover that JS did not use the "golden plates" in the translation process. He simply put his stone in his hat, buried his face in the hat to exclude the light, and spoke out the alleged translation. This raises another question - one asked by many critical thinkers: "What was the purpose of the plates, and why did JS even need them if they were not used to translate?
somemormonguy, I don't know why the church tells a different story in contemporary publications of the D&C, but the church's explanation of the process is an interpretation that is not inherant in the text of section 9, and it certainly contradicts the accounts of his scribes. Also, JS never said anything that contradicts them. The weight of all the evidence surrounding JS's story should cause anyone seeking the truth to question anything JS said. After all, the lack of archeological evidence, the internal contradictions in Mormon teachings, the contradictions with the Bible, and the irrefutable fact that JS used the same method to defraud people are an overwhelming argument against trusting one's eternal destiny and the eternity of his children in the teachings of the mormon church.
I am out of time for today, I will finish answering your post tomorrow.
< Message edited by mushhead -- 2/4/2008 6:34:48 PM >
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mormonism? - 2/4/2008 7:00:06 PM
|
| | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
