Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:07 pm**

Sargon wrote:Also, Emma Smith said that the plates laid on the table wrapped in a linen cloth while Joseph dictated the words to her. (Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling: Richard Lyman Bushman. pg. 71)

Something to keep in mind is that the translation of the Book of Mormon was not done in one sitting, nor all in one place, nor was it witnessed by all these witnesses at the same time. And it also was not done by the same method every time. He began using the Urim and Thumim with a curtain between him and Martin Harris, then used the seerstone(not the urim and thummim) without a curtain when translating with Oliver Cowdery. Other methods are probable, but we simply don't have enough information.

Sargon.. Just an fyi... Emma sat behind a curtain, hidden from Joseph, while she wrote down the words Joseph was speaking.

"While transcribing, he reportedly sat behind a curtain and looked at the plates through the Urim and Thummim, passing the written transcriptions to Emma, who was sitting on the other side of the curtain (Howe 1834, pp. 270—271). "

Canuckster1127 wrote:

You guys kill me..

And I always thought a Curelom was one of these things...

Posted: **Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:28 pm**

Gman wrote:

And I always thought a Curelom was one of these things...

Apparently, so did Orson Pratt (Journal of Discourses, 12:339-340).

Posted: **Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:47 pm**

Fortigurn,

I disagree completely with your interpretations of the eye witness accounts. I have some comments on your conclusions. We could spend the time to argue over the meanings and implications of the varying accounts, but instead of wasting time, let us get straight to the point.

1) We are discussing the origin of the names in the Book of Mormon. You contend that Smith took the names from the bible, while not providing any evidence except for your interpretation that the plates could not have been the origin based on the eye witness accounts.

2) You continue to contend that the plates were not present, so they weren't the source. You also contend that even were the plates present, they were not the source of the names because you believe that since Joseph did not directly read the plates during translation the names could not have come from them.

My response is:

1) Your theory that Smith took the names from the bible has absolutely no evidence, a problem which you have yet to deal with. In fact, there is evidence that argues precisely against your hypothesis. Your hypothesis stands solely on your conclusion that the plates were not the source.

B) The plates were sometimes present, and sometimes not. There are accounts of them being present, and accounts of them not being present. While you conclude that the eye witness accounts are unreliable because of this fact, you fail to consider that Joseph translated the plates in different places, by different methods, and using different scribes.

Also, you conclude that because Joseph used the urim and thummim in his dictation of the BoM, the text did not come from the plates. In your opinion he clearly could not have translated anything without having opened the book of plates and directly translating them using his own intellect. You provide no explanation for why this is the only acceptable method of translation.

Because I believe that God still operates among man, I believe that spiritual gifts are present on the earth. I believe that Joseph Smith was given one such gift, in order that he might translate the Book of Mormon in a way that best suited his situation. According to our eye witnesses, he did in fact recieve revelation through the urim and thummim, and this revelation was a translation of the gold plates. Through Joseph's faith he was able to translate the Book of Mormon by revelation, without needing to learn an unknown tongue. Is this translation?? Perhaps not to you. But to me translation is to take the words of one language and change them into the words of another language. That is exactly what Joseph Smith did, via the urim and thummim.

Let us examine some of your final statements:

If he is not taking information from the plates and translating it, then it is not translation. What you describe is direct revelation.

Joseph was taking information from the plates, and translating it. This was done via the urim and thummim. You assume that because he did not physically read the plates, he could not have taken information from them. You doubt the power of God. That was the purpose of the Urim and Thummim.

It doesn't matter what was on the plates, because Smith was shown English by means of a completely different medium.

Are you argueing that because Joseph used a medium that you don't understand, the information could not have come from the plates? What keeps the information from having come from the plates?

When you read English out loud, and someone writes it down, that's not translation. That's reading and dictation.

I agree. But when the words are translated into english by the power of God, and then read and dictated, that is translation, reading and dictation.

So there was no translation process, and the plates were not the source of the Book of Mormon.

Remind me again why there was no translation process. I am not aware of there being any specific process by which translation has to be done in order to be considered translation.

What is clear from the eye witness accounts, is that Joseph recieved the information for the BoM from a source that was not the bible. A fact which you cannot refute. Unless you can come up with another hypothesis, we are left to believe that the text is in fact a translation of the plates.

Sargon

Posted: **Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:38 am**

Sargon wrote:1) We are discussing the origin of the names in the Book of Mormon. You contend that Smith took the names from the bible, while not providing any evidence except for your conclusion that the plates could not have been the origin based on the eye witness accounts.

That's not actually an accurate presentation of my case, This has been my case:

* There is no evidence that the text of the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates

* The reasons for this are:

(a) There is no evidence for the existence of the plates
(b) There is no evidence that the plates contained the information in the Book of Mormon
(c) There is no evidence that whatever was on the plates was translated by Smith
(d) There is evidence contrary to the claim that Smith translated the plates:

(i) Most witnesses describe the plates as completely absent during Smith's writing of the Book of Mormon, or else as not being viewed by him during the writing of the Book of Mormon
(ii) Even witnesses recording Smith's alleged interaction with the plates describe a process which is not translation

* There are alternative sources to the plates which contain a significant amount of the information in the Book of Mormon, constituting either identical or near identical material (local geography, over 200 names and a considerable amount of text from the KJV Bible, plus text from the Spaulding Manuscript the View Of The Hebrews, and possibly others), which has been acknowledged and documented by General Authority BH Roberts.

* It can be demonstrated that these alternative sources exist, and the information in them was available to Smith, which cannot be said for the plates

That is my case. The fact is that we have no evidence whatever that the material in the Book of Mormon was taken from the plates by any means, still less by translation (and much evidence against a translation process). We must therefore look for another source. There are a number of sources (already mentioned), in which a signfiicant amount of the materal in the Book of Mormon can be found.

The case that the material in the Book of Mormon was taken from these sources is therefore considerably more credible than the case that the material was translated from the plates.

2) You continue to contend that the plates were not present, so they weren't the source. You also contend that even were the plates present, they were not the source of the names because you believe that since Joseph did not directly read the plates during translation the names could not have come from them.

Well I was reading the witnesses you gave me, and all I can say that if I am charitable and trust what they say, then I have to believe that they are telling me that the plates weren't present, or weren't even viewed by Smith when they were. Should I believe them or not?

You're in a bind here, because if you tell me not to believe them then you're left with the question of why I should believe any Mormon witnesses. But if you tell me I should belive them, then you have to acknowledge that most of the witnesses to the writing of the Book of Mormon insist that the plates were not present, or weren't even viewed by Smith when they were.

A) Your theory that Smith took the names from the bible has absolutely no evidence, a problem which you have yet to deal with. In fact, there is evidence that argues precisely against your hypothesis. Your hypothesis stands solely on your conclusion that the plates were not the source.

As I have shown (and shown repeatedly), my case has plenty of evidence. It has both negative evidence and positive evidence. The negative evidence is that there is no evidence that the information in the Book of Mormon was taken from the plates. The positive evidence is that so much of the material in the Book of Mormon can be found in sources other than the plates. That is evidence. That is not hypothesis.

I have to remember that I'm speaking with someone who believes that the finding of an inscription in the Middle East reading 'NHM' is credible evidence that a certain place called 'Nahom' mentioned in the Book of Mormon is a genuine geographical site located where the Book of Mormon claims.

B) The plates were sometimes present, and sometimes not. There are accounts of them being present, and accounts of them not being present. While you conclude that the eye witness accounts are unreliable because of this fact, you fail to consider that Joseph translated the plates in different places, by different methods, and using different scribes.

I can conclude either that the accounts are not reliable (because they contradict each other), or I can conclude that the 'translation' process took place at different times, in different places, using different scribes, and by different methods.

Alternatively, I could accept both, which I most certainly do. The problem is that a number of the witness accounts sound like they are describing the entire process of 'translation', not merely one incident of many (Cowdrey claims he wrote the entire Book of Mormon 'save a few pages', as it was translated through the 'Urim' and 'Thummim' by Smith, Journal of Reuben Miller 21 October 1848, in Richard Anderson, "'By the Gift and Power of God," Ensign 7:9 (1977), 80). This would mean that some of the accounts contradict each other.

But even granting that the writing of the Book of Mormon was written over time, in different places, using different scribes (which I certainly believe), and even granting that the 'translation' method was different each time (which I most certainly do not believe, because there is no evidence for a translation process), I am left with the fact that the vast majority of accounts, covering the vast majority of the 'translation' sessions, record very plainly the fact that the plates were not used in the 'translation' process, and that often they weren't even present.

Also, you conclude that because Joseph used the urim and thummim in his dictation of the BoM, the text did not come from the plates.

No, I have not made any such conclusion. In fact I haven't even mentioned the 'Urim' and 'Thummim'. I have referred specifically to the seerstone. By the way, I hope you're aware of the confusion among Mormon apologists regarding the identity and use of the 'Urim' and 'Thummim' and the seerstone.

In your opinion he clearly could not have translated anything without having opened the book of plates and directly translating them using his own intellect. You provide no explanation for why this is the only acceptable method of translation.

That is not what I have said. What I have said is that none of the witnesses you gave me described a translation process. I am not claiming that Smith had to use his own intellect. I could happily grant Smith a Divinely bestowed gift of translation. But there is no evidence that an actual translation process took place.

A translation process requires the reading of one language and the transmission of its meaning into a different language. Now Smith had no knowledge of the language on the plates, and therefore couldn't read it. In order for a translation process to have taken place, he would have had to have been able to read the text. If he had been granted a Divinely bestowed knowledge of the language on the plates, and then transmitted the meaning of that text into English using this gift, that would have been translation.

But that is not what your witnesses say. On the contrary, they give us a variety of different accounts:

* Smith, using the seerstone, saw the 'Reformed Egyptian' (which he could not read), and the English underneath it, and dictated the English

* Smith, using the seerstone, saw simply the English (not the 'Reformed Egyptian'), and dictated the English

* Smith, using the 'Urim' and 'Thummim' like spectacles, looked directly at the 'Reformed Egyptian' on the plates, and instead of seeing the 'Reformed Egyptian' actually saw English

None of these, not even the last, is a description of translation, by your own definition.

According to our eye witnesses, he did in fact recieve revelation through the urim and thummim, and this revelation was a translation of the gold plates.

No, this is where it breaks down. The 'eye witnesses' didn't actually see a 'translation' process. They wrote down words which Smith spoke. The 'translation' process (if any), was not actually visible.

For example:

* They couldn't see in the hat, so they had no way of verifying if anything was being shown on the seerstone

* They couldn't use the 'Urim' and 'Thummim', so they had no way of verifying if it actually made the 'Reformed Egyptian' characters turn into English when used

* They couldn't read 'Reformed Egyptian', so they had no way of verifying if what was on the plates was being translated into English

* Most of them didn't even see the plates present during the 'translation' process

What they saw was Smith sitting and staring into a hat with a stone in it (most witnesses), or looking at plates with the 'Urim' and 'Thummim' used like spectacles (Cowdrey). In fact FARMS Mormon apologist Stephen Ricks makes the point that the accounts of Harris and Whitmer are not reliable ('However, several things argue against their explanation of the translation process', source).

Through Joseph's faith he was able to translate the Book of Mormon by revelation, without needing to learn an unknown tongue. Is this translation?? Perhaps not to you. But to me translation is to take the words of one language and change them into the words of another language.

Yes, to me, translation is to take the words of one language and change them into the words of another. But there is no evidence that Smith did this. Most of the witnesses say that what was revealed to him was English, which means that no translation took place. This is revelation, not translation. If God shows me a book written in English, and I read it aloud, I am not translating anything. I'm reading English.

That is exactly what Joseph Smith did, via the urim and thummim.

Not only is that not what Smith did, but (as you should know), even FARMS apologists are uncertain as to exactly what the alleged 'translation' process was, and cannot come to an agreement on it. In fact they cannot even agree that it can be described as 'translation'.

Joseph was taking information from the plates, and translating it. This was done via the urim and thummim.

Evidence please.

You assume that because he did not physically read the plates, he could not have taken information from them.

No, I am saying that unless there is any evidence that he was taking the information from the plates, you cannot assert that he was taking the information from the plates. The fact that the plates were entirely unnecessary to the process of writing the Book of Mormon shows that the information was not being taken from the plates - it was being supplied by direct revelation (the FARMS article by Stephen Ricks attempts to address this by basically discounting all the witness accounts which describe such a process).

Are you argueing that because Joseph used a medium that you don't understand, the information could not have come from the plates?

No.

What keeps the information from having come from the plates?

The fact that there is no evidence that the plates were necessary for the translation, and the eye witness accounts which claim that the information came from the seerstone, not the plates.

I agree. But when the words are translated into english by the power of God, and then read and dictated, that is translation, reading and dictation.

But the accounts say that Smith read English, which means that whatever he saw did not require translation. If you claim that the English he saw came from God, but that the plates were still being translated, then the only person left who can legitimately be called a translater would be God Himself, who would be reading the plates, translating them into English, and showing Smith the English.

This is absurd, because God would hardly have to read the plates Himself. The problem is that the eye witness accounts unfortunately demonstrate that the plates were unnecessary to the process of writing the Book of Mormon, leaving them hanging around in the whole story without a purpose. Smith didn't need them, because he was shown English, which he read. God didn't need them, because He didn't need to read what He already knew. The plates then become redundant.

Remind me again why there was no translation process. I am not aware of there being any specific process by which translation has to be done in order to be considered translation.

I'm referring to this:

Sargon wrote:But to me translation is to take the words of one language and change them into the words of another language.

Your words.

What is clear from the eye witness accounts, is that Joseph recieved the information for the BoM from a source that was not the bible.

Well no, as I've shown the eye witnesses confirmed nothing like that. They simply confirm that they saw Smith looking into a hat, and talking to them. That tells us nothing about the source of Smith's words. If I look into a hat and start talking to you, claiming I'm 'translating' a text which you can't even see (let alone read), there is no evidence whatever that I am doing what I claim, and certainly no way you can say you saw me translating anything. You just saw me sitting with a hat, talking to you.

Posted: **Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:53 pm**

It has been my understanding that until now we have been trying to determine whether or not Joseph could have taken the names in the Book of Mormon from the Bible or not. I have demonstrated by means of various eye witness accounts that the process by which the Book of Mormon was written included no bible.
In order to dodge this bullet, you have moved the focus of the debate to other topics, such as the presence of the plates, the urim and thummim, and the trustworthiness of the witnesses- not whether or not a bible could have been used.

I suppose that your determination to avoid the topic of whether or not a bible was present in the writing of the Book of Mormon can be taken as evidence for the downfall of the argument.

* There are alternative sources to the plates which contain a significant amount of the information in the Book of Mormon, constituting either identical or near identical material (local geography, over 200 names and a considerable amount of text from the KJV Bible, plus text from the Spaulding Manuscript the View Of The Hebrews, and possibly others), which has been acknowledged and documented by General Authority BH Roberts.

* It can be demonstrated that these alternative sources exist, and the information in them was available to Smith, which cannot be said for the plates

That is my case. The fact is that we have no evidence whatever that the material in the Book of Mormon was taken from the plates by any means, still less by translation (and much evidence against a translation process). We must therefore look for another source. There are a number of sources (already mentioned), in which a signfiicant amount of the materal in the Book of Mormon can be found.

It appears that the foundation for your position that the names in the BoM could have been taken from the Bible is your belief that the text did not come from the plates, and that the bible and the Book of Mormon share many similarities. After eliminating the plates from the picture, you have assumed that the bible is the next best option for the source of the names in the Book of Mormon, but assumption is against the evidence.

To recap, your belief that the names came from the Bible are founded on the following:

1) You believe you can prove that the plates were not the source of the names.

2) The bible shares many similarities with the Book of Mormon.

It is my understanding that this is your entire case for your belief that the names in the BoM came from the bible.

We can debate the process by which the plates were translated, or if they were translated at all, or if the plates even existed later. Before moving on to that I would like to complete this topic.

J.S. could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well worded letter, let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon.

Emma Smith Bidamon, Notes of Interview with Joseph Smith III, 1879.

...

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. He had neither mss nor book to read from. If he had had anything of the Kind he could not have concealed it from me. The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen table cloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I felt of the plates, as they lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metalic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book. O[liver] and JS wrote in the room where I was at work.

Emma Smith Bidamon, Ibid.

According to his wife Emma, Joseph did not have any manuscript or book(including a bible) from which to use. She confirms that there would have been no way for him to use one without her knowing.

There are some who have gone to extreme lengths to find a way out of this. I believe it is Dan Vogel who said that Sidney Rigdon may have written the portions that came from the bible while the book was in the printing press, then pretended to meet Joseph for the first time and be converted years after the book was published. I could be mistaken on the author of this theory however.

My basic message is that in light of the testimonies who witnessed the process by which the Book of Mormon was written in English, any use of the bible in this process is simply not possible. There are many chapters that contain Isaiahs words almost verbatim, with slight discrepancies, something that Joseph could not have memorized. Were he to have used a bible to either plagiarize, or to assist in a translation, the witnesses certainly would have mentioned it. It would have been a major part of his method in dictating/translating the BoM.

I don't mind getting into the questions of whether or not Joseph used the plates, whether any translation was being done, and what each witness had to say. I am aware of the debate within the Mormon community on these topics. It is an interesting thing to study. But before moving on to that, I would like to establish that the evidence for a bible being used simply is not there. The information in the BoM that is similar to the bible either came from the bible, or from another source. All evidence points towards another source. I won't even argue in this post that it came from the plates. I only want to establish that the bible was not used in Joseph's dictation/translation of the BoM.

Sargon

Posted: **Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:07 pm**

It has been my understanding that until now we have been trying to determine whether or not Joseph could have taken the names in the Book of Mormon from the Bible or not. I have demonstrated by means of various eye witness accounts that the process by which the Book of Mormon was written included no bible.
In order to dodge this bullet, you have moved the focus of the debate to other topics, such as the presence of the plates, the urim and thummim, and the trustworthiness of the witnesses- not whether or not a bible could have been used. I regret to have followed you into these side topics before finishing the first.

I suppose that your determination to avoid the topic of whether or not a bible was present in the writing of the Book of Mormon can be taken as evidence for the downfall of the argument.

* There are alternative sources to the plates which contain a significant amount of the information in the Book of Mormon, constituting either identical or near identical material (local geography, over 200 names and a considerable amount of text from the KJV Bible, plus text from the Spaulding Manuscript the View Of The Hebrews, and possibly others), which has been acknowledged and documented by General Authority BH Roberts.

* It can be demonstrated that these alternative sources exist, and the information in them was available to Smith, which cannot be said for the plates

That is my case. The fact is that we have no evidence whatever that the material in the Book of Mormon was taken from the plates by any means, still less by translation (and much evidence against a translation process). We must therefore look for another source. There are a number of sources (already mentioned), in which a signfiicant amount of the materal in the Book of Mormon can be found.

It appears that the foundation for your position that the names in the BoM could have been taken from the Bible is your belief that the text did not come from the plates, that the bible and the Book of Mormon share many similarities, and that the bible was extant and available to Joseph. After eliminating the plates from the picture, you have assumed that the bible is the next best option for the source of the names in the Book of Mormon, which assumption is against the evidence.

To recap, your belief that the names came from the Bible are founded on the following:

1) You believe you can prove that the plates were not the source of the names.

2) The bible shares many similarities with the Book of Mormon.

3) The bible was extant and available for Joseph to use.

It is my understanding that this is your entire case for your belief that the names in the BoM came from the bible.

We can debate the process by which the plates were translated, or if they were translated at all, or if the plates even existed later. Before moving on to that I would like to complete this topic.

J.S. could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well worded letter, let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon.

Emma Smith Bidamon, Notes of Interview with Joseph Smith III, 1879.

...

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. He had neither mss nor book to read from. If he had had anything of the Kind he could not have concealed it from me. The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen table cloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I felt of the plates, as they lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metalic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book. O[liver] and JS wrote in the room where I was at work.

Emma Smith Bidamon, Ibid.

According to his wife Emma, Joseph did not have any manuscript or book(including a bible) from which to use. She confirms that there would have been no way for him to use one without her knowing.

There are some who have gone to extreme lengths to find a way out of this. I believe it is Dan Vogel who said that Sidney Rigdon may have written the portions that came from the bible while the book was in the printing press, then pretended to meet Joseph for the first time and be converted years after the book was published. I could be mistaken on the author of this theory however.

My basic message is that in light of the testimonies who witnessed the process by which the Book of Mormon was written in English, any use of the bible in this process is simply not possible. There are many chapters that contain Isaiahs words almost verbatim, with slight discrepancies, something that Joseph could not have memorized. Were he to have used a bible to either plagiarize, or to assist in a translation, the witnesses certainly would have mentioned it. It would have been a major part of his method in dictating/translating the BoM.

I don't mind getting into the questions of whether or not Joseph used the plates, whether any translation was being done, and what each witness had to say. I am aware of the debate within the Mormon community on these topics. It is an interesting thing to study. But before moving on to that, I would like to establish that the evidence for a bible being used simply is not there. The information in the BoM that is similar to the bible either came from the bible, or from another source. All evidence points towards another source. I won't even argue in this post that it came from the plates. I only want to establish that the bible was not used in Joseph's dictation/translation of the BoM.

Sargon

Posted: **Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:43 pm**

Sargon,

You asked earlier about the connection between the BoM and Spalding's manuscript. There appears to be much evidence that Sidney Rigdon did in fact take the manuscript from the publishers then hooked up with Oliver Cowdrey and Joseph Smith Jr.. Which after their 3-year rewrite came to publish the BoM in 1830.

You might want to take a look at this video about the BoM connection to the Spalding manuscript.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ding&hl=en

I recently purchased the book "Who really wrote the BoM, the Spalding Enigma." from Amazon. I got it today... I'll let you know more what I find out later...

Posted: **Thu Jan 18, 2007 10:31 pm**

Another important site is here.

Posted: **Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:22 am**

Sargon wrote:It has been my understanding that until now we have been trying to determine whether or not Joseph could have taken the names in the Book of Mormon from the Bible or not. I have demonstrated by means of various eye witness accounts that the process by which the Book of Mormon was written included no bible.
In order to dodge this bullet, you have moved the focus of the debate to other topics, such as the presence of the plates, the urim and thummim, and the trustworthiness of the witnesses- not whether or not a bible could have been used. I regret to have followed you into these side topics before finishing the first.

Sargon, I haven't dodged anything. I have simply been steadfastly pointing out that the absence of any mention of the Bible in the eye witness accounts does not prove that the Bible was not one of the sources of the material in the Book of Mormon (and remember, it was you who claimed that not mentioning the plates didn't mean they weren't present or used).

This is the point, that you seem to think that an absence of any mention of the Bible from these eye witness accounts means that the Bible was not one of the sources of the material in the Book of Mormon. This is a complete non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow the premise.

It appears that the foundation for your position that the names in the BoM could have been taken from the Bible is your belief that the text did not come from the plates...

No it is not founded on my belief that the text did not come from the plates. That would be a circular argument. If you want to understand my position, please read the careful and detailed description of my position in my post above. There is no need for you to rewrite it for me.

It is my understanding that this is your entire case for your belief that the names in the BoM came from the bible.

It is clear that you have not read my last post with sufficient care, since I am not arguing that the names in the Book of Mormon come from the Bible. I am arguing that a large number of them do, and that the Bible was one of a number of sources of the material in the Book of Mormon.

You quote from Emma Smith, who conveniently tells us what we already know - that she didn't see the plates herself, and that Smith did not use them in the process of writing the Book of Mormon which she witnessed.

My basic message is that in light of the testimonies who witnessed the process by which the Book of Mormon was written in English, any use of the bible in this process is simply not possible.

But this argument is not true. Emma testifies that there were times when Smith dictated to her from behind a curtain. Not only that, but you assume that if a Bible was not present, no material from the Bible could have been used. This is a non sequitur.

There are many chapters that contain Isaiahs words almost verbatim, with slight discrepancies, something that Joseph could not have memorized. Were he to have used a bible to either plagiarize, or to assist in a translation, the witnesses certainly would have mentioned it. It would have been a major part of his method in dictating/translating the BoM.

You're still assuming that all the eye witness accounts are accurate, and describe every instance of the writing process. I have shown you why this cannot be true, and that even contemporary Mormon apologists find it impossible to accept all the witness accounts as accurate, necessarily rejecting those accounts which differ from their own understanding of the writing process.

I only want to establish that the bible was not used in Joseph's dictation/translation of the BoM.

It would help your case immeasurably if you could demonstrate that the two shared no common material. The fact that they do is of considerable advantage to my case.

Posted: **Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:58 am**

I have simply been steadfastly pointing out that the absence of any mention of the Bible in the eye witness accounts does not prove that the Bible was not one of the sources of the material in the Book of Mormon

Well the absence of the bible, or any kind of list of names from the bible in all of the accounts certainly is strong evidence. Each speaks of a seerstone, or spectacles, or urim and thummin as the medium through which Joseph did the translating.

(and remember, it was you who claimed that not mentioning the plates didn't mean they weren't present or used).

Thats right. Did you think IRR would include the accounts from those who witnessed Joseph using the plates during translation? They only listed those who spoke about the seerstone in their attempt to paint a picture of a mysterious demonic Joseph Smith. Like I said, the plates were often used, and often not.

This is the point, that you seem to think that an absence of any mention of the Bible from these eye witness accounts means that the Bible was not one of the sources of the material in the Book of Mormon. This is a complete non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow the premise.

Yes I do. I am certain that you disagree with me, but I believe it is strong evidence to consider when trying to determine whether or not the bible was used. Of the many accounts given, not one mentions the bible, while many mention the plates. Don't go and tell me again that none of the accounts on the IRR site mention the plates, because they aren't the only accounts.

It is clear that you have not read my last post with sufficient care, since I am not arguing that the names in the Book of Mormon come from the Bible.

This discussion stemmed from a list that you introduced of names in the Book of Mormon and how they relate to names in the bible. Your purpose in presenting this list was to show that the names in the BoM came from the Bible. That is why we are having this discussion.

I am arguing that a large number of them do, and that the Bible was one of a number of sources of the material in the Book of Mormon.

But you have yet to show any evidence that these materials were available to Joseph (except the bible), or that he had them with him during translation. In opposition to your position, every eye witness account describes a scene that includes absolutely no use of any other materials besides the plates, the seerstone, the urim and thummin, a breastplate, a hat, a desk, and a scribe. Not every account names all of those things, but cumulatively they name these objects. No mention is ever made of any other source for the text. Emma Smith testified that were he to use anything else she would have known it, and he could not have hid it from her. Unless you want to claim that she was just flat out lying, then you will have to find a way around this statement.

You quote from Emma Smith, who conveniently tells us what we already know - that she didn't see the plates herself, and that Smith did not use them in the process of writing the Book of Mormon which she witnessed.

Emma Smith did not see the plates. But she testified to have felt them, lifted them, and moved them around the table. She testified to have felt sheets of metal like pages in a book. And she is not the only one. The plates definitely existed. She also did not tell us that Smith did not use them.
From Gman's post:

"While transcribing, he reportedly sat behind a curtain and looked at the plates through the Urim and Thummim, passing the written transcriptions to Emma, who was sitting on the other side of the curtain (Howe 1834, pp. 270—271). "

Joseph looked at the plates through the Urim and Thummin. The Urim and Thummin were spectacle like objects, that Joseph looked through when examining the words on the plates. They allowed him to understand the characters. The account on the IRR site has Emma testifying of witnessing the translation by a different process, via the seerstone.
http://www.irr.org/MIT/divination.html

"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." 3

Nothing between us doesn't sound like a curtain was present. Emma witnessed Joseph translating at every stage of the work. At one point he used a curtain, at others he didn't. At some points he used the spectacles, at others he used the seerstone and the hat.

Not only that, but you assume that if a Bible was not present, no material from the Bible could have been used. This is a non sequitur.

There is no assuming going on here. Like I said before, noone ever mentions a bible, or anything containing information from the bible as being used in the translation process. Unless you can argue that Joseph somehow hid it from them, and fooled even the scribes sitting across from him, we are forced to conclude that no bible or anything containing information from the bible was used.

You're still assuming that all the eye witness accounts are accurate, and describe every instance of the writing process. I have shown you why this cannot be true, and that even contemporary Mormon apologists find it impossible to accept all the witness accounts as accurate, necessarily rejecting those accounts which differ from their own understanding of the writing process.

I am aware that LDS apologists don't all agree on the nature of the witnesses. But that is not what we are discussing here. What we are discussing is that not one single one of the witnesses mentions a bible, or the spaulding manuscript, or view of the hebrews, or any other source other than those mentioned. Unless you can argue that they could have not seen it, or that they did see it and didn't think it was important to mention, we have to conclude that there was no alternative source.

One more interesting quote:

In an 1891 interview, William Smith indicated that when his brother Joseph used the "interpreters" (which were like a silver bow twisted into the shape of a figure eight with two stones between the rims of the bow connected by a rod to a breastplate), his hands were left free to hold the plates.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:d2H ... clnk&cd=10

The plates were indeed used during the translation. Sometimes Joseph looked directly at them through the spectacles, and sometimes the characters were shown to him on the seerstone.

Sargon

Posted: **Fri Jan 19, 2007 12:04 pm**

Sargon wrote:
I have simply been steadfastly pointing out that the absence of any mention of the Bible in the eye witness accounts does not prove that the Bible was not one of the sources of the material in the Book of Mormon
Well the absence of the bible, or any kind of list of names from the bible in all of the accounts certainly is strong evidence. Each speaks of a seerstone, or spectacles, or urim and thummin as the medium through which Joseph did the translating.
(and remember, it was you who claimed that not mentioning the plates didn't mean they weren't present or used).
Thats right. Did you think IRR would include the accounts from those who witnessed Joseph using the plates during translation? They only listed those who spoke about the seerstone in their attempt to paint a picture of a mysterious demonic Joseph Smith. Like I said, the plates were often used, and often not.
It would help your case immeasurably if you could demonstrate that the two shared no common material. The fact that they do is of considerable advantage to my case.
Not in my opinion.

Sargon

This is the point, that you seem to think that an absence of any mention of the Bible from these eye witness accounts means that the Bible was not one of the sources of the material in the Book of Mormon. This is a complete non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow the premise.
Yes I do. I am certain that you disagree with me, but I believe it is strong evidence to consider when trying to determine whether or not the bible was used. Of the many accounts given, not one mentions the bible, while many mention the plates. Don't go and tell me again that none of the accounts on the IRR site mention the plates, because they aren't the only accounts.
It is clear that you have not read my last post with sufficient care, since I am not arguing that the names in the Book of Mormon come from the Bible.
This discussion stemmed from a list that you introduced of names in the Book of Mormon and how they relate to names in the bible. Your purpose in presenting this list was to show that the names in the BoM came from the Bible. That is why we are having this discussion.
I am arguing that a large number of them do, and that the Bible was one of a number of sources of the material in the Book of Mormon.
But you have yet to show any evidence that these materials were available to Joseph (except the bible), or that he had them with him during translation. In opposition to your position, every eye witness account describes a scene that includes absolutely no use of any other materials besides the plates, the seerstone, the urim and thummin, a breastplate, a hat, a desk, and a scribe. Not every account names all of those things, but cumulatively they name these objects. No mention is ever made of any other source for the text. Emma Smith testified that were he to use anything else she would have known it, and he could not have hid it from her. Unless you want to claim that she was just flat out lying, then you will have to find a way around this statement.
You quote from Emma Smith, who conveniently tells us what we already know - that she didn't see the plates herself, and that Smith did not use them in the process of writing the Book of Mormon which she witnessed.
Emma Smith did not see the plates. But she testified to have felt them, lifted them, and moved them around the table. She testified to have felt sheets of metal like pages in a book. And she is not the only one. The plates definitely existed. She also did not tell us that Smith did not use them.
From Gman's post:
"While transcribing, he reportedly sat behind a curtain and looked at the plates through the Urim and Thummim, passing the written transcriptions to Emma, who was sitting on the other side of the curtain (Howe 1834, pp. 270—271). "

Joseph looked at the plates through the Urim and Thummin. The Urim and Thummin were spectacle like objects, that Joseph looked through when examining the words on the plates. They allowed him to understand the characters. The account on the IRR site has Emma testifying of witnessing the translation by a different process, via the seerstone.
http://www.irr.org/MIT/divination.html
"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." 3
Nothing between us doesn't sound like a curtain was present. Emma witnessed Joseph translating at every stage of the work. At one point he used a curtain, at others he didn't. At some points he used the spectacles, at others he used the seerstone and the hat.
Not only that, but you assume that if a Bible was not present, no material from the Bible could have been used. This is a non sequitur.
There is no assuming going on here. Like I said before, noone ever mentions a bible, or anything containing information from the bible as being used in the translation process. Unless you can argue that Joseph somehow hid it from them, and fooled even the scribes sitting across from him, we are forced to conclude that no bible or anything containing information from the bible was used.
You're still assuming that all the eye witness accounts are accurate, and describe every instance of the writing process. I have shown you why this cannot be true, and that even contemporary Mormon apologists find it impossible to accept all the witness accounts as accurate, necessarily rejecting those accounts which differ from their own understanding of the writing process.
I am aware that LDS apologists don't all agree on the nature of the witnesses. But that is not what we are discussing here. What we are discussing is that not one single one of the witnesses mentions a bible, or the spaulding manuscript, or view of the hebrews, or any other source other than those mentioned. Unless you can argue that they could have not seen it, or that they did see it and didn't think it was important to mention, we have to conclude that there was no alternative source.

One more interesting quote:
In an 1891 interview, William Smith indicated that when his brother Joseph used the "interpreters" (which were like a silver bow twisted into the shape of a figure eight with two stones between the rims of the bow connected by a rod to a breastplate), his hands were left free to hold the plates.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:d2H ... clnk&cd=10
The plates were indeed used during the translation. Sometimes Joseph looked directly at them through the spectacles, and sometimes the characters were shown to him on the seerstone.

Sargon

Posted: **Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:34 pm**

Sargon wrote:
I have simply been steadfastly pointing out that the absence of any mention of the Bible in the eye witness accounts does not prove that the Bible was not one of the sources of the material in the Book of Mormon
Well the absence of the bible, or any kind of list of names from the bible in all of the accounts certainly is strong evidence. Each speaks of a seerstone, or spectacles, or urim and thummin as the medium through which Joseph did the translating.

And you wonder why the Mormon Church is not taken Seriously

Deuteronomy 18:10-11 says, There shall not be found among you... one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens or a sorcerer, or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.

Posted: **Fri Jan 19, 2007 2:48 pm**

No I do not wonder.

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

Posted: **Fri Jan 19, 2007 8:42 pm**

Sargon wrote:Well the absence of the bible, or any kind of list of names from the bible in all of the accounts certainly is strong evidence.

[...]

Yes I do. I am certain that you disagree with me, but I believe it is strong evidence to consider when trying to determine whether or not the bible was used. Of the many accounts given, not one mentions the bible, while many mention the plates. Don't go and tell me again that none of the accounts on the IRR site mention the plates, because they aren't the only accounts.

[...]

But you have yet to show any evidence that these materials were available to Joseph (except the bible), or that he had them with him during translation. In opposition to your position, every eye witness account describes a scene that includes absolutely no use of any other materials besides the plates, the seerstone, the urim and thummin, a breastplate, a hat, a desk, and a scribe. Not every account names all of those things, but cumulatively they name these objects. No mention is ever made of any other source for the text. Emma Smith testified that were he to use anything else she would have known it, and he could not have hid it from her. Unless you want to claim that she was just flat out lying, then you will have to find a way around this statement.

[...]

Like I said before, noone ever mentions a bible, or anything containing information from the bible as being used in the translation process. Unless you can argue that Joseph somehow hid it from them, and fooled even the scribes sitting across from him, we are forced to conclude that no bible or anything containing information from the bible was used.

[...]

What we are discussing is that not one single one of the witnesses mentions a bible, or the spaulding manuscript, or view of the hebrews, or any other source other than those mentioned. Unless you can argue that they could have not seen it, or that they did see it and didn't think it was important to mention, we have to conclude that there was no alternative source.

I have grouped these all together because they are all simply repeating the same claim. That claim is that since none of the eye witnesses mention a Bible, the material in the Book of Mormon could not have come from the Bible. I am trying to get you to understand why this is a non-argument.

These are the reasons why:

* At least one of the witness accounts describes Smith being separated from the scribe by a curtain, meaning he could have had anything behind the curtain without the knowledge of the scribe

* The majority of the witness accounts describe Smith looking into a hat, in which he placed the seerstone, but none of the witnesses would know what else could have been in the hat

* There is no necessity for the Bible to have been physically present in order for Smith to use it as the source of material in the Book of Mormon (I could spin you a number of amazing tales based simply on what I remember of Bible stories and quotes)

This is why your repeated claim that the Bible was not present during the writing process is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not any material in the Book of Mormon was taken from the Bible. This is the negative evidence.

The positive evidence that material in the Book of Mormon was taken from the Bible includes:

* Around 200 names found in the Bible (specifically in the translation common to Smith's time, and available in his area, which included the Apocrypha), which are also found in the Book of Mormon many identical, some only slightly altered (evidence)

* A large amount of material which is found specifically in the KJV Bible also found in the Book of Mormon, in the very language of the KJV Bible (evidence and even more evidence)

This includes passages in the Book of Mormon which contain exactly the same translation errors as are in the KJV Bible. To date, you have not addressed this evidence.

Each speaks of a seerstone, or spectacles, or urim and thummin as the medium through which Joseph did the translating.

On the contrary, the majority of the witnesses claim that only the seerstone was used. Not only that, but those witnesses describe a process which was not translation.

Like I said, the plates were often used, and often not.

How many accounts can you find which describe the plates being used, that is Smith actually viewing the plates? How many times is 'often'?

Emma Smith did not see the plates. But she testified to have felt them, lifted them, and moved them around the table. She testified to have felt sheets of metal like pages in a book. And she is not the only one. The plates definitely existed.

In other words, Emma felt some things in a linen cloth, which she didn't see, while Smith wrote the Book of Mormon.

She also did not tell us that Smith did not use them.

In the two accounts we have so far (your quote of one of Emma's accounts, and my quote of another of Emma's accounts), Emma does not describe Smith using the plates at all. She makes it clear in one account that they were not used, and makes it clear in another account that they weren't even present. Can you provide all the accounts in which she describes them being used in a translation process?

From Gman's post:
"While transcribing, he reportedly sat behind a curtain and looked at the plates through the Urim and Thummim, passing the written transcriptions to Emma, who was sitting on the other side of the curtain (Howe 1834, pp. 270—271). "

I have highlighted the important part. Here we have Howe allegedly quoting Emma. This is a second hand account, not an eye witness account. Not only that, but it is clear that Emma could not see what Smith was doing, because he was behind a curtain. She was therefore not an eye witness to his translation of the plates in this case (assuming this account is accurate).

Joseph looked at the plates through the Urim and Thummin. The Urim and Thummin were spectacle like objects, that Joseph looked through when examining the words on the plates. They allowed him to understand the characters. The account on the IRR site has Emma testifying of witnessing the translation by a different process, via the seerstone.
http://www.irr.org/MIT/divination.html

If you want to enter into the issue of the seerstone versus the 'Urim' and 'Thummim', I will start a new thread. You will have to explain why the accounts differ. Smith, for example, claimed more than once that the 'Urim' and 'Thummim' were taken from him after he had lost the first 116 pages which he gave to Walter Harris. You will have to reconcile this with the claims by other people that he used them for the rest of the Book of Mormon. I suggest you will find this difficult.

Nothing between us doesn't sound like a curtain was present.

Not at this time, but certainly at another time.

The plates were indeed used during the translation. Sometimes Joseph looked directly at them through the spectacles, and sometimes the characters were shown to him on the seerstone.

The only accounts which say anything about the plates being used for the translation are those accounts which describe Smith physically reading the plates. None of the accounts of Smith looking into his hat using the seerstone describe a process of translation.

Remember, there is no evidence that the material in the Book of Mormon came from the plates.

The 'eye witnesses' didn't actually see a 'translation' process. They wrote down words which Smith spoke. The 'translation' process (if any), was not actually visible.

For example:

* They couldn't see in the hat, so they had no way of verifying if anything was being shown on the seerstone

* They couldn't use the 'Urim' and 'Thummim', so they had no way of verifying if it actually made the 'Reformed Egyptian' characters turn into English when used

* They couldn't read 'Reformed Egyptian', so they had no way of verifying if what was on the plates was being translated into English

* Most of them didn't even see the plates present during the 'translation' process

What they saw was Smith sitting and staring into a hat with a stone in it (most witnesses), or looking at plates with the 'Urim' and 'Thummim' used like spectacles (Cowdrey).

Posted: **Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:56 pm**

Fortigurn,

I appreciate your having organized your thoughts well in this latest post. As you probably noticed I often try to lay things out in steps and number them, it helps me to define the discussion. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend you on your perseverance, though I wholly disagree with your conclusions.

I have grouped these all together because they are all simply repeating the same claim. That claim is that since none of the eye witnesses mention a Bible, the material in the Book of Mormon could not have come from the Bible. I am trying to get you to understand why this is a non-argument.

These are the reasons why:

Great. Let us examine them individually.

* At least one of the witness accounts describes Smith being separated from the scribe by a curtain, meaning he could have had anything behind the curtain without the knowledge of the scribe

To my knowledge, only two people ever mentioned having a curtain in place. Martin Harris and Emma. And both of those occasions were during the translation of the first 116 pages, which were lost by Martin Harris and were never re-translated, and are not included in the Book of Mormon. Therefore if a bible could have been used to write that portion it would not have been included in the BoM. To my knowledge no mention of a curtain is ever made by Oliver Cowdery, who did the vast majority of scribe work after Harris was relieved of his duty.
Also, as I understand it some believe that Harris's statements have been misunderstood. It is thought by some that Harris was describing a sheet hung between the part of the room in which they were working and the rest of the house.

The scribes typically could see Joseph translating, though Martin Harris was once quoted as saying that a curtain was placed between him and Joseph during translation. However, that appears to refer to a time before Martin actually served as a scribe. Another scribe, David Whitmer, mentions a curtain that partitioned off an area to keep the scribe and Joseph out of sight of visitors (see David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness, ed. Lyndon W. Cook, 1991, p. 173, as cited by Neal Maxwell, Ensign, Jan. 1997, p. 40). In fact, Oliver Cowdery's wife said that "Joseph never had a curtain drawn between him and his scribe" and Joseph's wife also said that there was no barrier between her and Joseph when she acted as scribe (cited by Maxwell, p. 40).

It is argued by some that at no point was a curtain was placed between them during the translation process.

The presence of the sheet is only mentioned during the translation of the portion that was lost and not included in the BoM, therefore anything that Joseph could have been hiding behind it didn't make it into the BoM.
This is my understanding.

* The majority of the witness accounts describe Smith looking into a hat, in which he placed the seerstone, but none of the witnesses would know what else could have been in the hat

I will mention a few interesting points on this. During the time that Harris served as scribe, there is an interesting story in which Harris and Joseph took a break and went outside to rest.

He said, though, one time when Joseph was using the seer stone for the purpose of translating, he became weary of translation; one can imagine after two or three hours of sitting and working like that, that they would want to go and take a rest, and they did. They went down to the river side, he said, and they picked up stones and starting throwing them across the water. As Joseph was doing that, Martin, unbeknownst to Joseph, picked up a stone that was roughly the same size and shape and color as the seer stone that he was using, and put it in his pocket. Then he was able to exchange the seer stone for the stone that he had found, so that when Joseph began the translation again, instead of having the seer stone he had the stone that had been picked up by Martin.

Martin, in describing this experience, says that Joseph looked intently in the hat that was used to cover, to keep the light out, and was absolutely silent for several moments—something that did not normally happen in the translation process, where Joseph could simply pick up where he had stopped off and continue, more or less continuously translating. And then he said to Martin, "Martin, what has happened? It is as dark as Egypt." And when he looked at Martin's face, Martin said that his countenance fell and then Joseph asked him, "What happened?" Martin explained, and then Joseph asked him, "Why did you exchange the one stone for the other?" And Martin said, "To prove that those that were claiming that Joseph was simply making up the words were wrong about it." He said he did it to shut the mouths of fools for making such claims.

Apparently Martin had a glimpse of what was in the hat. He actually reached in a took out the seerstone and replaced it when Joseph was not looking. There are a few other accounts from those who served as scribes describing the way in which the stone would glow. It is possible that Joseph simply told them that but not probable.
There is another story in which Oliver Cowdery wanted to try and translate. Joseph unhesitatingly handed over the instruments to Oliver. Oliver looked into the hat and was not able to translate, because he didn't know how. The point is that it is extremely improbable that Joseph could have quickly removed anything he was hiding in the hat without Oliver seeing. Oliver was sitting right in front of him.
Joseph's brother described him translating at one point by a totally different method, using no hat, curtain, or seerstone. He simply looked at the plates through the spectacles. No way to hide a bible or anything else.

* There is no necessity for the Bible to have been physically present in order for Smith to use it as the source of material in the Book of Mormon (I could spin you a number of amazing tales based simply on what I remember of Bible stories and quotes)

I see no reason to consider this negative evidence. How else would he have the information? Would he have memorized it the night before from reading the bible? Would he have copied it down and hid it in the hat? Emma said that there was no way he could have hid any manuscript from her.
Just as you claim that no bible was needed to be present in order to gleam information from it, no plates were required at all times for Joseph to know their contents. Joseph used the plates during the first stages of translation, until he became familiar with the language, then later out of convenience he used the seerstone, which showed him the characters on the plates which he would then work out a translation for.

According to Orson Pratt, an early Apostle of the Church, Joseph said that he had used the Urim and Thummim to translate when he was inexperienced at translation, but with time it was no longer necessary (Millennial Star, Aug. 11, 1874, pp. 498-499).

The negative evidence you claim exists simply does not.

Let us examine the "positive" evidence you have presented:

* Around 200 names found in the Bible (specifically in the translation common to Smith's time, and available in his area, which included the Apocrypha), which are also found in the Book of Mormon many identical, some only slightly altered (evidence)

This is arguably true. But in order for this to be possible you would have to overcome all the evidence that no Bible or manuscript was present in the translation. Also, a better conclusion exists that actually fits within the accounts- that the BoM was written by ancient Israelites who had copies of the Old testament and who spoke a form of Hebrew. Though this story sounds amazing, it fits much better within the available data.

* A large amount of material which is found specifically in the KJV Bible also found in the Book of Mormon, in the very language of the KJV Bible (evidence and even more evidence)

There are easy explanations for this. But do you really want to get off topic? It makes perfect sense that Joseph would have used the language he was familiar with, phrases he had grown up hearing. KJV english was not strange to the ears of Joseph's day as it is now. Thats the short answer.

This includes passages in the Book of Mormon which contain exactly the same translation errors as are in the KJV Bible. To date, you have not addressed this evidence.

To date, you have not brought this up.
Again, a very big topic that would get us way off track.

As for the positive evidence which you have, I admit that one might consider it evidence if they were really trying to disprove the Book of Mormon. There are alternate explanations which fit better with the available data, but that is something you will surely disagree with.

Quote:
Each speaks of a seerstone, or spectacles, or urim and thummin as the medium through which Joseph did the translating.

On the contrary, the majority of the witnesses claim that only the seerstone was used. Not only that, but those witnesses describe a process which was not translation.

Well we have already been through this. It is a fact that accounts exist describing objects other than the seerstone used for translation. Also, we have already discussed that your narrow definition of translation is not appropriate for this case. I believe that Joseph had to work both spiritually and mentally in order to translate. God helped him understand the meanings of the characters, but he had to figure out a way to put the ideas into english in a manner that God approved of.

Quote:
Like I said, the plates were often used, and often not.

How many accounts can you find which describe the plates being used, that is Smith actually viewing the plates? How many times is 'often'?

Ok if you want to quarrel over the word "often" I will give you this one. It is probable that Joseph did not need to physically view the plates for a greater portion of the time. But it is indisputable that he did use the plates during certain periods of time.

In other words, Emma felt some things in a linen cloth, which she didn't see, while Smith wrote the Book of Mormon

Yes. She felt something that felt exactly as metal plates should.

In the two accounts we have so far (your quote of one of Emma's accounts, and my quote of another of Emma's accounts), Emma does not describe Smith using the plates at all. She makes it clear in one account that they were not used, and makes it clear in another account that they weren't even present. Can you provide all the accounts in which she describes them being used in a translation process?

I will try to dig them all up. Its really late and I need to get going. Ill try and finish this up later.

Sargon

Evidence for God from Science

more mormon heresy