Book Of Mormon Translation - Rock In The Hat.

[Snow]

I'm teaching Priesthood on March 7th (and possibly Feb 29th - in which case I'd make it a 2-part lesson).

The 5th and 1st Sundays are not from the manual so I can teach on anything I want provided it is within in certain guidelines - the guideline I'll be using is that my source material will all be out of General Authority articles from the Ensign.

My topic is going to be the real translation process of the Book of Mormon - how it worked, who was involved, how long it took, where were the plates during the translation, when was the Urim and Thummin used and when was the seer stone in the hat used and where did the seer stone come from and what do ya'll think about that...

Of course, in keeping with Priesthood lesson schemes, I am going to have a context, beyond just talking about history for history's sake, but I wonder how everyone will react when the hear the rock in the hat story. I expect a bit for backlash and so I will be properly prepared with a complete bibliography to hand out.

[Cal]

You might anticipate the question: Well, if all JS had to do was look into a hat with a rock in it, what did he need the "plates" for?

[Guest bat]

You should craft your own seer stones and use your priesthood powers to translate a book that is written in chinese that is in another room just to show that it really can be done.

I'm going to be brutally honest for a change. It absolutely amazes me that people can hear about the "rocks in the hat trick" and still think that Joseph Smith was anything but a two bit con man with a vivid imagination. It boggles my mind.

BTW, if you need any help with that bibliography, let me know. I'd be glad to help by putting my "anti-mormon" library to use.

[Snow]

As far as actual translation goes, I don't think that he did. I don't understand the connection of the papyrus to the BoA but it seems to me, and I am decently read on the subject, JS didn't rely on physical source material for the BoM, the BoA, the BoM or the Inspired Version in order to produce the verbiage. They, like the U&T or the seer stone may have been "props" or tools to get him into the frame of mind to receive the revelation (if one believes it was revelation) but as he matured as a seer, such tools became unnecessary.

[Snow]

Originally posted by bat@Feb 11 2004, 05:51 PM

I'm going to be brutally honest for a change. It absolutely amazes me that people can hear about the "rocks in the hat trick" and still think that Joseph Smith was anything but a two bit con man with a vivid imagination. It boggles my mind.

Yeah Bat,

Explain that. This is not an insult but people far more intelligent and educated and logical than you (and me) accept it and believe with a certainty greater than anything else in their lives.

You think there is nothing to faith other than a simple willingness to believe. To those that have made the "leap of faith," it is something else entirely. Because you (meaning CAl) can't physically test the faith, you assume that it, as something more than a simple willingness to believe, does not exist. Yet, for those that have "experienced the mystery" it is as real as Terry Bradshaw's polished noggin.

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by Snow+Feb 11 2004, 06:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Feb 11 2004, 06:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--bat@Feb 11 2004, 05:51 PM

I'm going to be brutally honest for a change.  It absolutely amazes me that people can hear about the "rocks in the hat trick" and still think that Joseph Smith was anything but a two bit con man with a vivid imagination.  It boggles my mind.

Yeah Bat,

Explain that. This is not an insult but people far more intelligent and educated and logical than you (and me) accept it and believe with a certainty greater than anything else in their lives.

You think there is nothing to faith other than a simple willingness to believe. To those that have made the "leap of faith," it is something else entirely. Because you (meaning CAl) can't physically test the faith, you assume that it, as something more than a simple willingness to believe, does not exist. Yet, for those that have "experienced the mystery" it is as real as Terry Bradshaw's polished noggin.

I HAVE "experienced the mystery". Mushrooms are cool.

[Cal]

Yeah, and for the hallucinating schizophenic, his reality is just as convincing to HIM. Just not to anyone else. Thanks, but I chose to stay in the physical world where outlandish claims can be tested and either accepted or rejected on more objective grounds. I guess that makes me really SILLY, huh?

[Guest bat]

I forgot about my Robotrip episode. That was too weird. Did you know that there are GI Joe guys with VelocaRaptor (sp) heads living behind my dresser waiting for me to go to sleep so they can kill me? It's true. I saw them. If you don't believe me, prove that I did not see them.

[Snow]

No, that makes you a man of no faith. Having no faith is not immoral. Paul Toscano lost his faith. Ask him how great it is to live without faith.

Bat takes illegal drugs (mushrooms) and dextromethorphan hydrobromiden. Apparently he thinks that is a good substitute for faith. Ask him how great that is.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Snow@Feb 11 2004, 05:54 PM

As far as actual translation goes, I don't think that he did. I don't understand the connection of the papyrus to the BoA but it seems to me, and I am decently read on the subject, JS didn't rely on physical source material for the BoM, the BoA, the BoM or the Inspired Version in order to produce the verbiage. They, like the U&T or the seer stone may have been "props" or tools to get him into the frame of mind to receive the revelation (if one believes it was revelation) but as he matured as a seer, such tools became unnecessary.

Joseph Smith actually used what has come to be known as the U&T and the plates for the first 116 pages of the BoM (the ones lost by Martin Harris.) It was after this fiasco that the use of the U&T was taken from him and he was instructed to find another way to translate.

For those of you who think using the stones in the hat is a joke and therefore detracts from the validity of the Book of Mormon, here is a concept. You write a 777 page book (or get someone else to write it for you.) Then memorize the whole thing (all 777 pages) and "read it" verbatim with your head stuck in a hat. For that matter, stick your head in a hat for 8 hours a day and don't do anything and see if you pass out from asphyxiation after a matter of minutes.

Snow, I agree with your theory that the stones were devices that, in the beginning, helped channel Joseph's thoughts toward God, and after he became more comfortable with the role of prophet and seer, they became unnecessary.

[Guest bat]

So what exactly is it that you are claiming JS would have had to memorize?

This reminds me of that South Park episode where JS refuses to re"translate" the first 116 pages of the BoM and says that God gave him a revelation that the pages were not to be re"translated". "This proves that he was a prophet!"

Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

[Cal]

Actually, all JS had to have was a vivid imagination and great story telling ability--not something unknown in all of human history.

Snow--as to faith. Just because someone doesn't believe the BoM to be accurate history or of some supernatural origin doesn't mean one doesn't have FAITH. I have faith in lots of things. It's just that I first find a REASON to have faith in them. If that REASON disapears, so does my faith in it. When it comes to statements about faith, you have to ask the question, "FAITH IN WHAT, and for WHAT REASON?". Faith without reason is folly!

Case in point: I have faith that the scientific method is the best method man has found to discover truth. When someone shows me a better one, one that actually works better, I will then have FAITH in that. I don't just keep having faith inspite of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, which is what a lot of mormons have don't in relation to the BOM and BoA.

Faith should be modified in the face of reason. If I have faith that JS was giving an accurate story of the history of the native americans it probably started because I had no reason NOT to believe it, and there was at least SOME good reason to believe. On the other hand, if the assumptions I made about JS, that ALLOWED me to start having faith in the first place, subsequently DISAPPEAR, then why would it not be rational to question that faith in light of the new evidence?

Of course, if one had no commitment to rationality in the first place, then I suppose new information would be of little import. But then, one would wonder about such a person who would believe in things without a rational basis to begin with.

[Guest bat]

Cal,

Surely you have faith that there are GI Joe guys with VelocaRaptor (sp) heads living behind my dresser. I'd show you, but I think they only come out when nobody else is here.

[Jenda]

Actually, all JS had to have was a vivid imagination and great story telling ability--not something unknown in all of human history.

You really must be kidding! If that is what you believe, then you have never really studied the BoM. You are making all your assertions about it being false on things you have heard other people say.

The BoM weaves a timeline, and has themes and sub-themes, and is laced throughout with the Abrahamic Covenant in ways that it would take more than just "someone with a vivid imagination" to come up with. Not just that, but to have it rife with archaic Jewish poetry that was not even discovered as a type of poety till about 15 years ago, so good old Joe couldn't have thought it up.

Do some real studying before you come here and spout nonsense.

[Guest bat]

Jenda,

So what would it mean if chiasmus was exhibibed in Joseph Smith's diaries and in the D&C? You might want to check into that before asserting that this constitutes a valid evidence for the BoM's authenticity. Unless you're going to claim that the D&C and JS's diaries are ancient texts too.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3500/

[Guest antishock82003]

Things I don't believe about the How the Book of Mormon Came About Story:

1) I don't believe anyone ever saw the plates...with their real eyes (spiritual ones don't count).

2) I don't believe the timeline story. I think Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery co-wrote the BoM. I think the process took a lot longer than what the Church claims.

3) I can't believe Joseph Smith was dumb enough to take a copy of some Reformed Egyptian to Mr. Anthon in order for him to verify their legitimacy...especially after Joseph Smith, er, the BoM states that no one can translate Reformed Egyptian. Don't ya get it? Helloooooo, McFly?

4) I can't believe that there are reasonable people, once they discover that Joseph Smith stuck his face in a hat and started "translating", still believe in the legitimacy of the BoM...ESPECIALLY after the way the Church has promoted the translation process (we all saw the neat painting...don't deny it...gold plates, candle light, clothe separating JS and OC...c'mon...you can admit it).

5) I don't believe the gold plate theory, i.e. gold plates were used to conserve space, when thirteen bazillion "And it came to passes" were included in the text of the BoM. C'mon!! I know I'm straying a bit, but...c'mon!!!

[Guest bat]

This one?

[Guest bat]

Nope, this one.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by bat@Feb 11 2004, 07:22 PM

Jenda,

So what would it mean if chiasmus was exhibibed in Joseph Smith's diaries and in the D&C? You might want to check into that before asserting that this constitutes a valid evidence for the BoM's authenticity. Unless you're going to claim that the D&C and JS's diaries are ancient texts too.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3500/

Nope, they aren't ancient texts. But, as many before me have asserted, once Joseph translated the BoM, his speech patterned itself after that language when he received and transcribed revelations from the Lord. That happens in lots of cases. So I wouldn't use it to disprove it, either.

[Guest bat]

1) Mormons say the Book of Mormon has Chiasmus. Special Hebrew

Chiasmus. And this points to the Book of Mormon as an authentic

ancient Hebrew document.

2) Critics counter that the Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon does no

such thing. They are often contrived, forced, and easily mistaken for

simple repetative styles.

Then, the critics point out that Joseph Smith used Chiasmus in his

other writing, so there is no need to believe in missing plates and

inconsistent stories of visions because the "Joseph Smith wrote it"

hypothesis explains things quite nicely.

Finally, the critic points out that the Book of Mormon, itself, says

that the language the people used was altered, and that there are no

examples of ancient-American books written on plates of metal with

languages derived from Hebrew/Egyptian -- with or without Chiasmus.

So there is no pre-existing reason to look for "special Hebrew

Chiasmus" in the Book of Mormon because it is not primarily a Hebrew

document. It is primarily an ancient-American document. Any Hebrew

style is easily explained as Joseph Smith copying both style and

word-for-word from the Bible (which he did a lot).

So the idea that Chiasmus = ancient Hebrew text is false from the get

go, and the Book of Mormon's thesis does not even predict them.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by bat@Feb 11 2004, 08:10 PM

Finally, the critic points out that the Book of Mormon, itself, says

that the language the people used was altered, and that there are no

examples of ancient-American books written on plates of metal with

languages derived from Hebrew/Egyptian -- with or without Chiasmus.

So there is no pre-existing reason to look for "special Hebrew

Chiasmus" in the Book of Mormon because it is not primarily a Hebrew

document. It is primarily an ancient-American document. Any Hebrew

style is easily explained as Joseph Smith copying both style and

word-for-word from the Bible (which he did a lot).

If you are basing whether or not to believe in the BoM on this assertion, let me tell you that the critic is wrong. It says nowhere in the BoM that the language of the people was altered. Nowhere.

What it does say is that they used Egyptian heiroglyphics to write their Hebrew words because they took up less space to write. As time went on, they altered the Egyptian heiroglyphics to conform better to their usage, so that what they ended up using for the written word was no longer the same heiroglyph that they used when they left Jerusalem. It states nowhere that the language, itself, was altered.

Maybe your critic had better re-read what he claims to have read so he can get his facts straight.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by bat@Feb 11 2004, 08:10 PM

1) Mormons say the Book of Mormon has Chiasmus. Special Hebrew

Chiasmus. And this points to the Book of Mormon as an authentic

ancient Hebrew document.

2) Critics counter that the Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon does no

such thing. They are often contrived, forced, and easily mistaken for

simple repetative styles.

Then, the critics point out that Joseph Smith used Chiasmus in his

other writing, so there is no need to believe in missing plates and

inconsistent stories of visions because the "Joseph Smith wrote it"

hypothesis explains things quite nicely.

Finally, the critic points out that the Book of Mormon, itself, says

that the language the people used was altered, and that there are no

examples of ancient-American books written on plates of metal with

languages derived from Hebrew/Egyptian -- with or without Chiasmus.

So there is no pre-existing reason to look for "special Hebrew

Chiasmus" in the Book of Mormon because it is not primarily a Hebrew

document. It is primarily an ancient-American document. Any Hebrew

style is easily explained as Joseph Smith copying both style and

word-for-word from the Bible (which he did a lot).

So the idea that Chiasmus = ancient Hebrew text is false from the get

go, and the Book of Mormon's thesis does not even predict them.

Why don't you offer your "proof" here, Bat. This is nothing but drivel unless it can be backed up with proof. And since I already disproved one of the points your "critic" made, maybe you had better find a different critic to back up the rest of the points, because I can come up with other proofs to back up my claim that are much better than this, easily.

Remember, burden of proof.

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by Jenda+Feb 11 2004, 09:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Feb 11 2004, 09:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--bat@Feb 11 2004, 08:10 PM

Finally, the critic points out that the Book of Mormon, itself, says

that the language the people used was altered, and that there are no

examples of ancient-American books written on plates of metal with

languages derived from Hebrew/Egyptian -- with or without Chiasmus.

So there is no pre-existing reason to look for "special Hebrew

Chiasmus" in the Book of Mormon because it is not primarily a Hebrew

document.  It is primarily an ancient-American document.  Any Hebrew

style is easily explained as Joseph Smith copying both style and

word-for-word from the Bible (which he did a lot).

If you are basing whether or not to believe in the BoM on this assertion, let me tell you that the critic is wrong. It says nowhere in the BoM that the language of the people was altered. Nowhere.

What it does say is that they used Egyptian heiroglyphics to write their Hebrew words because they took up less space to write. As time went on, they altered the Egyptian heiroglyphics to conform better to their usage, so that what they ended up using for the written word was no longer the same heiroglyph that they used when they left Jerusalem. It states nowhere that the language, itself, was altered.

Maybe your critic had better re-read what he claims to have read so he can get his facts straight.

Eat crow.

Mormon 9:34

34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by bat@Feb 11 2004, 09:14 PM

Mormon 9:34

34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.

This is interesting.....

1 Nephi 3:19

19 And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these records, that we may preserve unto our children the language of our fathers;

*Gasp*!

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by bat+Feb 11 2004, 09:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bat @ Feb 11 2004, 09:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--bat@Feb 11 2004, 09:14 PM

Mormon 9:34

34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.

This is interesting.....

1 Nephi 3:19

19 And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these records, that we may preserve unto our children the language of our fathers;

*Gasp*!

There were a lot of wars, and different civilizations going and coming between Moroni's time and 1st Nephi's time.