Some Mormons may not understand Joseph's translation process

[Justice]

Not all truth is self-evident. You misunderstand the founding fathers. They said they held "these" truths to be self evident. I don't believe they ever intended to say any and all truth is self evident. If that were the case then there would never be any arguments over anything because the truth would always be self-evident.

[pam]

I believe truth is self-evident, is using deductive logic a crime?

My deductive logic believes the truth is self-evident that you have an agenda here.

You are arguing in riddles here and frankly I believe people are getting tired of it. You've been asked for references to back up your claims. Please provide those.

[LDSNETA]

Not all truth is self-evident. You misunderstand the founding fathers. They said they held "these" truths to be self evident. I don't believe they ever intended to say any and all truth is self evident. If that were the case then there would never be any arguments over anything because the truth would always be self-evident.

Socrates was the source, or was it Plato?

[LDSNETA]

My deductive logic believes the truth is self-evident that you have an agenda here.

You are arguing in riddles here and frankly I believe people are getting tired of it. You've been asked for references to back up your claims. Please provide those.

Don't play games.

[pam]

Oh believe me...I'm not playing games.

[Guest mormonmusic]

My deductive logic believes the truth is self-evident that you have an agenda here.

You are arguing in riddles here and frankly I believe people are getting tired of it. You've been asked for references to back up your claims. Please provide those.

The reason he's not giving any references is self-evident -- he doesn't have any. I've emotionally checked out of this discussion...think I'll go and flesh out my profile now.

Edited December 16, 2009 by mormonmusic

[LDSNETA]

Oh believe me...I'm not playing games.

Tell HiJolly and Just_A_Guy to answer the questions I gave then. I don't appreciate everyone ganging up btw.

[pam]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LDSNETA

How the terms were defined at the time. There are threads already drawing upon these facts.

JAG responded:

Can you link to them, please?

I don't understand why you would insist that I tell JAG to answer your questions when you have failed to answer his. I've yet to see the links that you stated exist.

I am not the first moderator that has asked that you provide sources on this thread.

Edited December 16, 2009 by pam

[LDSNETA]

I don't understand why you would insist that I tell JAG to answer your questions when you have failed to answer his. I've yet to see the links that you stated exist.

I am not the first moderator that has asked that you provide sources on this thread.

Seriously? They never read a thread on this topic, in any forum, anywhere? That's why I said they are obfuscating. I will provide links if they each state they have never read a thread on any forum.

[pam]

To quote someone. "Don't play games."

[john doe]

Why wait? Just provide the proof of your claim or retract it.

[Vort]

The over-under for LDSNETA's banning is 8:30 am PST.

[Dravin]

I have proof you are wrong. It's on the internet. Prove it? What? You've never used the internet?

[LDSNETA]

To quote someone. "Don't play games."

Why wait? Just provide the proof of your claim or retract it.

The over-under for LDSNETA's banning is 8:30 am PST.

You don't have to gang up. The truth won't hurt. And no, I won't play their games of obfuscation.

[deseretgov]

I actually have no probably with Joseph Smith Speaking (describing) what he is seeing, but thats not reading it as David Whitmer explains. David Whitmer explains Joseph Smith was reading every word exactly as it was on the seer stone. The words would not go away until it was correct. This means there was no room for error at all! (This is what lead to David Whitmers fall from the church).

I agree. I believe it was a much more fluid proccess. That is why the King James text appears in the Book of Mormon. It wasnt an exact translation of the symbols engraved on the gold plates.

[LDSNETA]

I agree. I believe it was a much more fluid proccess. That is why the King James text appears in the Book of Mormon. It wasnt an exact translation of the symbols engraved on the gold plates.

"By fluid" you mean, he paused, thought, pondered, and experimented in his mind upon which word to use before choosing one?

[HiJolly]

Tell HiJolly and Just_A_Guy to answer the questions I gave then. I don't appreciate everyone ganging up btw.

LDSNETA, you said:

Define "disorderly conduct," "back then."

Where's the question? What is the question? You did not ask a question. Instead, you are avoiding the conversation and stonewalling whenever you are asked to hold up your end of the conversation.

Essentially, you're acting like a jerk.

Do you *really* not understand what disorderly conduct is? AND, you *really* can't look it up, or somehow think I'm using a idiosyncratic definition that no one else knows? :eek:

Do you *really* not know when Joseph's pre-trial hearing (Bainbridge) occurred? (of course you do). Or were you saying that you don't understand what "back then" means? (of course you do).

Get real, or get out.

HiJolly

[LDSNETA]

Essentially, you're acting like a jerk..HiJolly

Give the definition back then or move on.

[HiJolly]

I agree. I believe it was a much more fluid proccess. That is why the King James text appears in the Book of Mormon. It wasnt an exact translation of the symbols engraved on the gold plates.

I think the evidence is just fascinating. We have the witness' accounts, which differ over time and by whomever is speaking. And that's to be expected. None are contradictory unless someone insists on putting contraints into place that don't actually come out of the witness' accounts.

Then we have the texual evidence of the Book and its manuscripts itself.

(1) The text is dictated in groups of phrases

(2) The text appears to be 16th or 17th century grammar & usage

(3) D&C 9 combined with journal entries and letters of the day suggest that Joseph was required to 'study' (something) 'out in his mind'.

(4) Other journal entries, the manuscripts and letters of the day suggest that Joseph was explicitly given exactly what to dictate.

Evidence of the texts extant argue against #3 and in favor of #4.

Evidence of the texts extant argue against #4 and in favor of #3.

Joseph once said that by proving opposites, the truth is made manifest.

My opinion is, that when something occurs "by the power and gift of God", then simple or simplistic explanations almost always fail to capture the reality of it.

We see names being spelled letter by letter, clearly evidence for a 'tight' translation process.

We see words being used like "adieu" (for farewell) and choices between words like "pressing" and "feeling", clearly evidence for a 'loose' translation process.

Obviously, somehow it was both, or a combination of these.

I really think simplifying the process to "text on parchment" or "pondering it out in his mind" do the process a disservice, and actually prevents our understanding. I think this quote is appropriate:

"A conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking"

-- Arthur Bloch

That fact is, that God and His methods (ie, translation of the Book of Mormon) cannot be properly understood by the thinking or logic of this world. It requires a view or insight into the eternal. IE, if we seek to nail it down 100% by using only scholarship or critical analysis or logic, we will fail to understand the reality of what happened.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

Give the definition back then or move on.

False dichotomy. You are participating in a community message board.

Where's the question? What is the question? You did not ask a question. Instead, you are avoiding the conversation and stonewalling whenever you are asked to hold up your end of the conversation.

HiJolly

[john doe]

Give the definition back then or move on.

Back then: at the time referenced.

Now you have your definition, return the favor by producing the sources for your claims. Or retract the statments.

[LDSNETA]

I really think simplifying the process to "text on parchment" or "pondering it out in his mind" do the process a disservice, and actually prevents our understanding. I think this quote is appropriate: HiJolly

The true approach (not for prayer as D&C 9 was) was in scripture:

But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost. (Mark 13:11)

And it came to pass that Nephi and Lehi did preach unto the Lamanites with such great power and authority, for they had power and authority given unto them that they might speak, and they also had what they should speak given unto them (Helaman 5:18)

And it shall be given thee in the very moment what thou shalt speak AND WRITE (D&C 24:6)

The science of it is clear. Royal Skousen:

Joseph Smith is not the author of the Book of Mormon, nor is he actually the translator. Instead, he was the revelator: through him the Lord revealed the English-language text (by means of the interpreters, later called the Urim and Thummim, and the seer stone). Such a view is consistent, I believe, with Joseph’s use elsewhere of the verb translate to mean ‘transmit’ and the noun translation to mean ‘transmission’ (as in the eighth Article of Faith). (link)

Edited December 16, 2009 by LDSNETA

[LDSNETA]

False dichotomy. You are participating in a community message board.

Where's the question? What is the question? You did not ask a question. Instead, you are avoiding the conversation and stonewalling whenever you are asked to hold up your end of the conversation.

HiJolly

Back then: at the time referenced.

Now you have your definition, return the favor by producing the sources for your claims. Or retract the statments.

If Just_A_Guy will state he never read a thread on the subject, and is not obfuscating by withholding information and being belligerent, I will comply.

[HiJolly]

If Just_A_Guy will state he never read a thread on the subject, and is not obfuscating by withholding information and being belligerent, I will comply.

[LDSNETA]

If you're not going to respond to my respose to YOUR post, stop wasting my time.