Changing ordinances

[UtahDan]

As for the translation issue, what difference would it make if he was looking at the plates or not? He didn't understand any ancient languages so I fail to see how the process would have been any different with the plates in his physical presence. Either way, the words would be planted in his head somehow.

I don't know if it is a "difference" but it begs some questions. For example, if the plates aren't needed for translation, why were such lengths gone to in the BOM to preserve them and why was the importance of doing so underscored so strongly? Why describe the process as translation (giving the word its ordinary and normal definition) if that is not what was happening? Why leave the impression that while dictating the book Joseph was utilizing the breast plate and seer stones found with the plates (this is what you would think from reading JSH if you didn't know better) when in truth he was using his hat and a stone he had from his youth that he also used to look for buried treasure?

The problem here is not the method; one can easily defend the position that God can speak any way He wants to and has according to scripture. Through a burning bush, through a white salamander*, etc. The problem is that seer stone in hat appears to be the primary if not exclusive method and this is just not what we have in the JSH, nor from official outlets until very recently when the proof became undeniable, and this method just doesn't require these plates that are said in the strongest way to be so crucial.

EDIT: I'll add as well that there is a line of though here that says that Joseph needed to see them to be convinced, but this just leads to more problems. To accept that you have to believe that the appearance of Diety Himself and numerous appearances of a glorified, resurrected ancient prophet were insufficient proof for Joseph.







*Kidding!

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't know if it is a "difference" but it begs some questions. For example, if the plates aren't needed for translation, why were such lengths gone to in the BOM to preserve them and why was the importance of doing so underscored so strongly? Why describe the process as translation (giving the word its ordinary and normal definition) if that is not what was happening? Why leave the impression that while dictating the book Joseph was utilizing the breast plate and seer stones found with the plates (this is what you would think from reading JSH if you didn't know better) when in truth he was using his hat and a stone he had from his youth that he also used to look for buried treasure?

The problem here is not the method; one can easily defend the position that God can speak any way He wants to and has according to scripture. Through a burning bush, through a white salamander*, etc. The problem is that seer stone in hat appears to be the primary if not exclusive method and this is just not what we have in the JSH, nor from official outlets until very recently when the proof became undeniable, and this method just doesn't require these plates that are said in the strongest way to be so crucial.

Good questions. Maybe symbolic value?

I think it is telling that none of those close to the process seemed to comment on the fact that he wasn't staring at the plates while doing the translation. Why was it not a big deal to them?

[Pheidippides]

Sure, it's impossible to prove that there weren't other papyri that were undiscovered or were taken up into heaven. That sounds like something that an apologist could fall back on. It's tough to prove a negative.

Of course Joseph's explanation/interpretation of the facsimiles is also pretty definitively incorrect. And it's hard to make the same argument regarding the facsimiles.

Also, for the record, I have no problem saying that the funerary scrolls and the facsimiles were the means through which God inspired Joseph to provide us with the Book of Abraham. Seems to make a lot more sense to say that the scrolls (and the plates if they existed) were vehicles for Joseph's inspiration rather than to continue to claim there was some type of literal translation from Egyptian or from another language (Reformed Egyptian) for which there is absolutely not a shred of corroborating evidence whatsoever, but what do I know?

Clearly you haven't read enough of FARMS stuff! They clear all of this up.

In case the sarcasm is missed, I'm not a FARMS fan.

[UtahDan]

Good questions. Maybe symbolic value?

I think it is telling that none of those close to the process seemed to comment on the fact that he wasn't staring at the plates while doing the translation. Why was it not a big deal to them?

I find that interesting, but not telling. What do you think that fact tells us?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I find that interesting, but not telling. What do you think that fact tells us?

Poor word choice perhaps. I meant interesting. I am not sure what it means.

[All-American]

I'm not sure why mormons focus so much on JS. This is clearly BY's church.

The same reason, I expect, that Christians focus so much on Jesus when it is clearly Paul's religious movement.

[UtahDan]

The same reason, I expect, that Christians focus so much on Jesus when it is clearly Paul's religious movement.

Ha ha. Touché.

[RC Vikings]

Good questions. Maybe symbolic value?

I think it is telling that none of those close to the process seemed to comment on the fact that he wasn't staring at the plates while doing the translation. Why was it not a big deal to them?

Those pictures we saw in primary clearly showed Joseph on one side of the curtain with the plates and Oliver on the other side writing down what Joseph said. How much more proof do you need.

[CardiacCoug]

The same reason, I expect, that Christians focus so much on Jesus when it is clearly Paul's religious movement.

Do people choose a church (or choose to stay in a church) because of its founding myths or because of what the church is today?

I guess it's probably a little bit of both.

Joseph Smith would obviously be the guy responsible for the founding myths.

As far as how the church operates today, you would have to give the credit to Brigham Young and David O. McKay I think. Also Presidents Monson and Hinckley because of how many decades they were involved at high levels..

[pellegrino]

Those pictures we saw in primary clearly showed Joseph on one side of the curtain with the plates and Oliver on the other side writing down what Joseph said. How much more proof do you need.

we're lucky Joseph and Oliver had the presence of mind to photograph hire a painter for document the occasion.

[LA Ute]

The Book of Moses is my favorite book in the PofGP. If Joseph could be inspired to produce all of that merely by working on an inspired translation of the Bible, then to me it's not a stretch that he wasn't looking at the plates continuously while translating them. After all, when you're doing something by the gift and power of God a lot is possible.

[Moliere]

Poor word choice perhaps. I meant interesting. I am not sure what it means.

It's incredibly interesting. It makes me wonder why he even needed plates in the first place. Maybe having the plates added more validity to the translation. Maybe he needed them to have witnesses of something physical pertaining to the work. There was a fabulous thread on this a while back about how objects might help in receiving inspiration so obviously this has been discussed.

Ultimately it makes me wonder what would happen if, when discussing the history of the church and the translation of the BoM, the teacher hung up a picture of JS with his head buried in his tophat instead of the standard picture. Would class members complain? Would they "feel the spirit leave?" Would they feel more enlightened?

Granted the standard picture isn't wrong as I understand there were several methods of translation, there is just more than one method.

[LA Ute]

I don't know if it is a "difference" but it begs some questions. For example, if the plates aren't needed for translation, why were such lengths gone to in the BOM to preserve them and why was the importance of doing so underscored so strongly? Why describe the process as translation (giving the word its ordinary and normal definition) if that is not what was happening? Why leave the impression that while dictating the book Joseph was utilizing the breast plate and seer stones found with the plates (this is what you would think from reading JSH if you didn't know better) when in truth he was using his hat and a stone he had from his youth that he also used to look for buried treasure?

The problem here is not the method; one can easily defend the position that God can speak any way He wants to and has according to scripture. Through a burning bush, through a white salamander*, etc. The problem is that seer stone in hat appears to be the primary if not exclusive method and this is just not what we have in the JSH, nor from official outlets until very recently when the proof became undeniable, and this method just doesn't require these plates that are said in the strongest way to be so crucial.

EDIT: I'll add as well that there is a line of though here that says that Joseph needed to see them to be convinced, but this just leads to more problems. To accept that you have to believe that the appearance of Diety Himself and numerous appearances of a glorified, resurrected ancient prophet were insufficient proof for Joseph.

*Kidding!

I can't articulate the point as well as Terryl Givens does, but he argues that the fact of the BofM is more important than (or as important as) its content. So under that line of reasoning the tangible existence of the plates, written by Mormon and Moroni, was essential.

[UtahDan]

I can't articulate the point as well as Terryl Givens does, but he argues that the fact of the BofM is more important than (or as important as) its content. So under that line of reasoning the tangible existence of the plates, written by Mormon and Moroni, was essential.

Why does Professor Givens say the fact of it is important?

[pellegrino]

The Book of Moses is my favorite book in the PofGP. If Joseph could be inspired to produce all of that merely by working on an inspired translation of the Bible, then to me it's not a stretch that he wasn't looking at the plates continuously while translating them. After all, when you're doing something by the gift and power of God a lot is possible.

I don't think anyone is disputing that as a reasonable interpretation. The issue at hand is that the plates and papyri as physical objects have historically been very important to the average TBM. It's also clear that Joseph wasn't forthcoming about how the books were translated (at least the BoM). When TBMs discover the facts about the role these objects had in the "translation" process it can be devastating. That the church and apologists do everything in their power to assert the primacy of the traditional and faithful history or evade a meaningful, (i.e. throfficial capacity) discussion of the facts as we know them is where the problem is. I think that has been hammered home in just about every discussion on this topic, so I don't mean to offend, but a recourse to "Joseph did it that way with the Book of Moses" seems out of place and if I didn't know you better it would seem an attempt to evade a discussion of the facts and their implications.