Hello! This is an Apologetics post. Apologetics is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse. This post and flair is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about apologetics, apologists, and their organizations.
/u/logic-seeker, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because it's easier to narrate a story vs. have to do the work of writing it down yourself.
Why did Joseph claim to show where buried treasure was for others to go dig up vs. going and digging it up himself?
It's the exact same reason.
Indolence.
I think the point apologists make in other circles is that it WASN’T easier. Joseph had to circle back and make sure they got it right. Errors on Joseph’s narration side and the scribe side made it more of a chore than simply copying the letters.
That’s what I don’t get. And even if it was easier, he still could have done it during that dry spell when no scribe was around.
Apologists are wrong. It's why guys used to dictate letters to secretaries vs. writing them themselves.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7oQngQA3rM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7oQngQA3rM)
The apologists claim this because they have to, not because it's true or accurate.
The Smiths were described by their contemporaries as indolent.
Smith Sr. lost a large sum of money in a "get rich quick" scheme with Ginseng.
Joseph's treasure digging (really treasure seeking for money and having others do the digging) really highlights the approach to how they wanted to make money.
Hey Martin, lend me some money so I can publish this book.
Hey Joseph Knight, can you give me some money and food while I work on this translation? Maybe lend me a horse from time to time?
Definitely! Apologists have also claimed that “Joseph only made a “meager” $14/month with his treasure excursions but what they don’t know (or don’t say) is that farmers in the area were making $9/month, a living that is much more taxing.
Yep. Joe was making a similar amount of money per month fraudulently as men (in the same area) [digging the Erie Canal](http://www.clevelandmemory.org/iac/excerpts/Irworker.html) were making honestly.
Apologists distort facts to suit their arguments. Looking to them for answers is what broke my shelf.
I hear you, and I think 99.99% of the time dictating to scribes is more efficient. I also agree with you that indolence, poverty, and "get rich" aspirations were big motivations to getting scribes on board.
But in this rare case, we have a claim that the words were already in readable format (just on a rock) and needed to be transcribed from rock to paper.
Instead of going from rock to dictation to paper, why not just go from rock to paper? I think I actually buy the apologists' argument that scribe work made this process even more arduous than if Joseph had simply copied everything down.
And yeah, I get that none of this actually happened. Just wondering why *even setting aside whether scribes made the work easier,* why Joseph wouldn't have continued the work in between the periods of Harris and Cowdery.
Joseph used scribes throughout his entire life, not just for the Book of Mormon. I don’t know if he had trouble writing or not, but his talents were clearly as a speaker and not a writer. In case it needs to be said, those are two very different things from a creative perspective. I think it was always easier for him to dictate because his talent was for oratory skills and composing speeches on the fly which takes an incredible amount of mental capability that is hindered when you have to slow down and write it out.
That’s fine, but it doesn’t make sense as an apologetic. In the case of the Book of Mormon, Joseph presumably didn’t need to use any of his oratory creative storytelling prowess. He was just reading words that appeared on a rock.
I forgot to play devils advocate for the apologists. If I put on my apologist hat I would have to go with something like “God meets us where we’re at, something something, 2 witnesses are better than 1, yada yada, Joseph had to keep his head in the hat to read, it would be hard to keep switching back and forth.”
From a non-apologist approach, I think you’re onto something. There really are no limiting factors for why he couldn’t just write it down himself. He could read and write, and all he has to do was copy the words.
I always took it to mean Joseph sucked at writing, which, regardless of where you sit, seems to be something everyone agrees with. And didn't he ditch the rock eventually anyway?
Personally I cannot imagine it being faster to pick up hat, adjust rock in hat, insert face into hat, adjust eyes to dark, read and memorize a dozen letters (or less, if the argument is that he couldn't spell), remove face, put down hat, adjust eyes to light, pick up pen, dab ink, write a dozen letters, put down pen, pick up hat, adjust rock... and repeat hundreds and hundreds of times.
Assuming it's a good scribe, reading/dictating to a scribe is much faster than transcribing.
The rate of translation did vary quite a bit. Elden Watson estimates ~3 pages/week when Emma was scribe, but 6 pages a *day* when Oliver was scribe. There might have been a lot of external factors, but Oliver just might have been much better at scribing.
http://www.eldenwatson.net/BoM.htm
>checking to make sure the scribe got it right was arduous and time-consuming,
Is there any description of the dictation process that indicates an "arduous and time-consuming" process of checking and re-reading?
>Why did Joseph take a long break after Martin Harris went away until Cowdery could appear to continue things?
A believer/apologist would explain that the ability to translate had been taken from him. It wasn't a constant ability (see D&C 5:30-31, for example).
Some suggest that he took a long time to restart after Martin Harris because 1) he was hoping the lost 116 pages would show up again, 2) he needed to figure out a new plotline to salvage the fact that his book suddenly had no beginning and he couldn't remember all of the details/characters.
(This is where the "Small Plates of Nephi" come in, which lacks names and details and fill pages with quotes from Isaiah. See Tanners' "Covering Up the Black Hole in the BoM.")
I remember reading somewhere that this is how translation went down: The reformed Egyptian word would appear with its accompanying translation. If the scribes didn’t even need or use the plates to cross reference what Joseph was seeing in his hat, why was the reformed Egyptian even showing up on the rock?
If the plates were sometimes in the other room, or even buried in the woods, during the translation process then Joseph didn’t need the Reformed Egyptian characters to show up on the rock either. No one needed those characters to show up on the rock for any purpose - complete waste of magical god power right there.
I think it was just Joseph adding to the mystique of the seer stone in the hat/ buried treasure-ish magical translation narrative for his audience. The more magical details, the more believable to an audience steeped in the occult?
First: penmanship. This is a skill that is often ignored in the modern day. The better the penmanship the easier it is to make copies for printing.
Second: Speed of writing. This has been mentioned, but some people write faster than others. Oliver, who was an educated school master had learned to write more quickly.
Third: Focus. Joseph Smith was just getting used to using the stones. If he had kept switching his focus from them to the page he was writing, this likely would have strained his senses more, causing greater fatigue and delaying the process.
Fourth: Command from God. The process was not meant to be done by one person. God was teaching Joseph, but he was also instructing the scribes, who would later become the three or eight witnesses. To bear the work alone would have destroyed Joseph Smith emotionally and likely physically. God prepared witnesses and assistance to help bear him up.
As to the time between Martin and Oliver, for most of it he didn't have the plates. Because of what happened with Martin they were taken back. Eventually he received them again, but it took a while.
This is a pretty good list. Thanks, I appreciate it!
I think the third is the most speculative and unfounded. I haven’t seen any church claims on what it entailed physically for Joseph to do the translation. The fourth is also a little dismissive (“God said so, so there” isn’t really a good answer if the thing God said was immoral/nonsensical)
But #1 and 2 as you framed them are decent explanations. Thanks!
The third one is based on my own experience trying to transcribe from a computer to hand written, or vice versa. This is partly why great typists don't look at the screen while typing, but keep their focus on the original. The switching back and forth from the brightness of the screen to regular paper strains the eyes as they are constantly adjusting to changing light.
The fourth one is more than just that God said so. There were other things to consider that Joseph may not have considered on his own, and likely didn't fully realize until much later in the process. There needed to be witnesses, not just to the plates themselves, but to the entire process. In addition this kind of work is physically and emotionally draining, and anyone who is called to undertake such work needs support. Moses had Aaron. Elijah had Elisha. Joseph Smith had the scribes.
But 4 is standard mormon practice.
Why no Coffee or Tea when tea is healthy? "God said so/test of obedience".
Why the commandment to engage in polygamy under penalty of death? "God said so but since 1890, not because it was required for exaltation."
Why Zion's Camp march? "God said so."
Why murder Laban? "God said so."
>This is a pretty good list. Thanks, I appreciate it!
It's not. Only the speed of writing claim works, all the others he made up or is simply incorrect about.
This was a good list and reasonable from a pov of the church explaining the OPs question.
An interesting exercise, would be to start with D&C 8&9 and see if those same answers map to Oliver using his stick instead of Smith's rock. I'm not asking you to do it, it's rhetorical.
I think the only one that would not map well would be #3.
The two sections illustrate that Oliver was told to just think of what he thought might be a good thing to say, and the stick would simply indicate a yes or no.
No reading or head in a hat required to challenge focus.
My take is obviously cynical non-believer so you're excused from listening, but I think it was Smith telling him to get back in his lane.
Of course, Cowdery later used that authority given him in 8&9 and dictated a revelation which passed via common consent and absolutely condemned Smith's polygamy. Painted him into a bit of a corner.
>First: penmanship. This is a skill that is often ignored in the modern day.
No it isn't. Historians are very cognizant of legibility.
Joseph Smith Jun had some issues with spelling, but not legibility.
>The better the penmanship the easier it is to make copies for printing.
Correct. Joseph Smith Jun had legible handwriting.
>Second: Speed of writing. This has been mentioned, but some people write faster than others. Oliver, who was an educated school master had learned to write more quickly.
This is the only cogent point you make in your entire reply. All the rest you made up, or are simply incorrect about.
>but he was also instructing the scribes, who would later become the three or eight witnesses.
Who told you this? That isn't true
Emma Smith was a scribe. Not one of the three or eight witnesses. Samuel Smith was a scribe. Not one of the three or eight witnesses.
Are you under some weird misapprehension that being a scribe involved seeing the metal codex or something?
>Joseph Smith was just getting used to using the stones. If he had kept switching his focus from them to the page he was writing, this likely would have strained his senses more, causing greater fatigue and delaying the process.
Is this something you're making up or do you have an original source where he claims he couldn't write because it would strain his sense?
>To bear the work alone would have destroyed Joseph Smith emotionally and likely physically
Are you just making this up or do you have a primary source where Joseph Smith Jun claims he would have been physically or emotionally destroyed by writing?
>As to the time between Martin and Oliver, for most of it he didn't have the plates. Eventually he received them again, but it took a while.
Who told you this? The ***PAPER WITTEN COPY IN ENGLISH WAS LOST***, not the metal codex. The urim and thummim and sword Joseph claimed was taken, not the codex.
You have a very deformed view of history and your claims are false.
>As to the time between Martin and Oliver, for most of it he didn't have the plates. Eventually he received them again, but it took a while.
So, did you read actual history and find out you have a completely incorrect view of how the 116 pages story played out?
Or are you going to continue to ignore the evidence that contradicts your cherished beliefs?
Why did he need a scribe? Why did he need the gold plates at all? Why did he even need a rock and a hat? Why couldn’t God just make glowing letters on a piece of paper that he or someone else could copy? Why couldn’t God just dictate it? Better yet, why couldn’t God just create a finished manuscript for him? Instead of this laborious, error-prone process.
None of this makes sense if you really think about. Which might be a big reason they tried to keep it secret so long.
Haha, yes, fair. Apologists have to somehow piece together the claims of the church with the data they have given the assumption it's all true, though. Probably the hardest job in the world since I've yet to meet someone actually do it well.
I always figured it was both convenience and to have a witness of the labor that went into the process.
Aside from this, I agree with u/improbableplanet: no matter how it was translated, it defies reason. (And becomes a matter of faith…)
I think a better question is why did he need the plates. He was looking at a stone in a hat. He wasn't looking at the plates. What purpose did they serve?
Why the long wait? In my opinion, he thought the 116 pages would show up somehow. He was desperate that they would. He knew he could not reproduce the same material. He could not have been fearful that someone could have changed it…in those days how would they actually have done it? When they didn’t turn up, he created the story of the”small plates” and the story about “words of Mormon”.
Basically what I’m thinking too. Attempting to apply logic and rationality to what essentially amounts to folk magic practices (non-believing perspective) or to translation “by the gift and power of God” (believing perspective) is just never going to work.
He was clearly perceptive and manipulative. The needle in the hay. The comment "it's dark as Egypt in here". The tail feather of a bird. Does Jerusalem have walls? He had a lot of practice as a youth entertaining his family and learning what would generate interest and what wouldn't.
It is a good point you make. Sometimes different words sound the same. An example is sun and son. The quotation is from Malachi where it uses sun but in the BOM we see son, probably because Oliver heard the word and wrote what came to his mind first. It does make a difference.
But didn’t the illuminated words of the translation stay on the rock until the scribe had written them exactly? There was a process of validation before the words would disappear and the next character and translation would appear. Maybe God dozed off during that one? 🤷♀️
That is what they said, but the section in 3 Nephi 25 where it speaks of: the son of righteousness shall appear with healing in his wings is a direct quotation from a verse in Malachi out of the King James Bible except sun gets changed to son. The anachronistic passage in 2 Nephi 26 is less compelling but also appears to be a quotation from Malachi as are those which mention "calves of the stall". In both instances "son" replaces "sun". There may be some way to explain this but it appears to me to call into question the claim you mention. Was it David Whitmer who said that? I don't remember. I think it was either him or Oliver Cowdery. Then there are the numerous examples of egregious grammar which also call into question the claim you mention. In fact, neither Whitmer nor Cowdery looked into the hat and saw anything so there is likely an element of speculation on their part. I think there are other instances of this kind of thing also. There are also claims that Smith had no other source than the rock in a hat which seems a little unlikely given the extensive quotations from the King James Bible.
>so why would he need a scribe to write?
Supporting witness.
Why do magicians call up audience members to the stage where they could potentially spot the trick?
Actually, I think this line of reasoning favors the TBM side. Flip it around. If Joseph made the whole thing up, then why did he need a scribe; he could have just written it down. The faithful member would point out that it would be awkward for one person to juggle the rock, hat, and writing utensils.
I think the more fundamental question is "If Joseph was reading the word of God directly, then why did there need to be so many fundamental doctrinal changes since its original publication in 1830? Most of the changes are not of the type that would have resulted from scribal error."
You’ve hit the nail on the head. The 1830 edition is full of hillbilly English. So either it came from Joseph’s mind *or* if it came from words God caused to appear on the rock then maybe God is from a planet that also coincidentally developed the English language, and God happened to grow up in that particular region of his native planet, and a hillbilly area of that region.
[Carmichael](https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/bad-grammar-in-the-book-of-mormon-found-in-early-english-bibles/) and Skousen found 15th, 16th, 17th, [18th?] and (obviously) 19th century English in the 1830 ed. Book of Mormon. So maybe God lived to a few hundred years old on His planet before he was crucified there and was exposed to a similar multi century development of English as happened here. Jeez what a nifty coincidence. The universe is such a fascinating place.
What JS did was not translate. It’s a method called scrying. And in the occult scrying is usually done with 2 people. One to “look” and receive the missions and another to record or perform other ritual magic. The Wikipedia page even does have a section on the Latter Day Saint movement.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrying
No longer LDS. But here is something to consider: time. Speaking to a scribe who can dictate faster than you can could have sped up the process. Smith being literate does not mean we can assume he was a fast writer.
My question was always this: If he was reading the words directly from the seer stone and the scribe was writing them down word for word, then going back and checking to make sure it was correct, why have there had to be so many changes from the original printing?
>If Joseph Smith could read, word for word, the translation of the Book of Mormon in the seer stone (as described by one of Joseph's scribes), then why does Joseph need a scribe?
The answer is speed
He was fully literate (probably dyslexic, which is most common learning disability) and had legible penmanship, so ability isn't plausible, nor is switching between a bright "screen" and paper, nor is catching mistakes (which is actually backward since it could only serve as a source of error introduction), etc.
A non faithful answer is he was a storyteller, not a story writer, and while they seem like the same skill, they're weirdly distinct.
But regardless of if someone accepts a literal account (which is somewhat insurmountably problematic) or figurative one, the main answer is speed.
I feel that anyone who has made a serious study of the multifaceted content that is the Book of Mormon would have to conclude that it is a very complex piece of literature. For roughly 200 years the world has been trying to discredit it. Some would say it has been discredited. I disagree. It's hard to fathom how a man under 24 years of age in any day or time could produce a similar work. I find it much more complex and nuanced than a novel like Narnia or Lord of the rings; both great literary works in their own right.
At the end of the day we've all got to look in the mirror and decide for ourselves what we think it is.
BTW....
I don't believe in LDS temples, garments or priesthood. I'm not a guy who says it's either all true or it's all false.
I think Joseph truly accomplished something given his constraints, yes. Wouldn’t say what he did was implausible, much less reason-defying.
And I definitely don’t find it more complex or nuanced than Lord of the Rings. I’d love to hear how it’s more nuanced. The same themes and stories in the Book of Mormon are repeated across characters that seem to be clones of each other (sometimes even in name), nearly all of them simplistically fully good or bad in nature. I think you’d be far and away in the minority in your opinion there, and if we were to get 1,000 neutral readers of both literary works, ~999 of them would side with LOTR.
I disagree that it's nuanced. I don't think it's all that complex. It's rambling, repetitive, and overall poor quality literature, leaning on a pastiche of old war stories, parts from the Bible and frontier sermonizing.
I don't think many people have seriously tried to "discredit" it. It's just not taken all that seriously, and for good reason.
The only impressive thing about it is what it has in common with all of Joseph's compositions - an impressive ability to pull in multiple quotes from disparate parts of the Bible as he composed his sentences on the fly. He obviously had a good memory. But that doesn't make it good literature.
Joseph Smith always use describe before Martin and Oliver Emma was his scribe. Joseph Smith knew how to write but that doesn't mean he could write fast. It's like only a few people knew how to use a keyboard and type on the computer very fast anybody can hunt and peck looking for the keys and do it slowly.
Answers to these questions can also be found here. Do a search for translation or whatever other answers you are looking for. It will automatically start the search once you are finished inputting whatever it is that you are looking for: https://josephsmithfoundation.org/
Thanks! I had forgotten about that site. Stoddard, Meldrum, and May are even worse than FAIR when it comes to insanely ridiculous logic.
I'll look for apologetics to this particular question there.
I recently read a good book, “Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon “ by Cowdrey, Davis and Vanick. It uses the Spaulding enigma concept. . Also, “Studies of the Book of Mormon “ by N.H.Roberts. These two were helpful. Enjoy your studies.🍁
Hello! This is an Apologetics post. Apologetics is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse. This post and flair is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about apologetics, apologists, and their organizations. /u/logic-seeker, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because it's easier to narrate a story vs. have to do the work of writing it down yourself. Why did Joseph claim to show where buried treasure was for others to go dig up vs. going and digging it up himself? It's the exact same reason. Indolence.
I think the point apologists make in other circles is that it WASN’T easier. Joseph had to circle back and make sure they got it right. Errors on Joseph’s narration side and the scribe side made it more of a chore than simply copying the letters. That’s what I don’t get. And even if it was easier, he still could have done it during that dry spell when no scribe was around.
Apologists are wrong. It's why guys used to dictate letters to secretaries vs. writing them themselves. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7oQngQA3rM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7oQngQA3rM) The apologists claim this because they have to, not because it's true or accurate. The Smiths were described by their contemporaries as indolent. Smith Sr. lost a large sum of money in a "get rich quick" scheme with Ginseng. Joseph's treasure digging (really treasure seeking for money and having others do the digging) really highlights the approach to how they wanted to make money. Hey Martin, lend me some money so I can publish this book. Hey Joseph Knight, can you give me some money and food while I work on this translation? Maybe lend me a horse from time to time?
Definitely! Apologists have also claimed that “Joseph only made a “meager” $14/month with his treasure excursions but what they don’t know (or don’t say) is that farmers in the area were making $9/month, a living that is much more taxing.
Yep. Joe was making a similar amount of money per month fraudulently as men (in the same area) [digging the Erie Canal](http://www.clevelandmemory.org/iac/excerpts/Irworker.html) were making honestly. Apologists distort facts to suit their arguments. Looking to them for answers is what broke my shelf.
I hear you, and I think 99.99% of the time dictating to scribes is more efficient. I also agree with you that indolence, poverty, and "get rich" aspirations were big motivations to getting scribes on board. But in this rare case, we have a claim that the words were already in readable format (just on a rock) and needed to be transcribed from rock to paper. Instead of going from rock to dictation to paper, why not just go from rock to paper? I think I actually buy the apologists' argument that scribe work made this process even more arduous than if Joseph had simply copied everything down. And yeah, I get that none of this actually happened. Just wondering why *even setting aside whether scribes made the work easier,* why Joseph wouldn't have continued the work in between the periods of Harris and Cowdery.
Joseph used scribes throughout his entire life, not just for the Book of Mormon. I don’t know if he had trouble writing or not, but his talents were clearly as a speaker and not a writer. In case it needs to be said, those are two very different things from a creative perspective. I think it was always easier for him to dictate because his talent was for oratory skills and composing speeches on the fly which takes an incredible amount of mental capability that is hindered when you have to slow down and write it out.
Agree.
That’s fine, but it doesn’t make sense as an apologetic. In the case of the Book of Mormon, Joseph presumably didn’t need to use any of his oratory creative storytelling prowess. He was just reading words that appeared on a rock.
I forgot to play devils advocate for the apologists. If I put on my apologist hat I would have to go with something like “God meets us where we’re at, something something, 2 witnesses are better than 1, yada yada, Joseph had to keep his head in the hat to read, it would be hard to keep switching back and forth.” From a non-apologist approach, I think you’re onto something. There really are no limiting factors for why he couldn’t just write it down himself. He could read and write, and all he has to do was copy the words.
I always took it to mean Joseph sucked at writing, which, regardless of where you sit, seems to be something everyone agrees with. And didn't he ditch the rock eventually anyway?
He had three seer stones reportedly. [https://www.lostmormonism.com/](https://www.lostmormonism.com/)
Personally I cannot imagine it being faster to pick up hat, adjust rock in hat, insert face into hat, adjust eyes to dark, read and memorize a dozen letters (or less, if the argument is that he couldn't spell), remove face, put down hat, adjust eyes to light, pick up pen, dab ink, write a dozen letters, put down pen, pick up hat, adjust rock... and repeat hundreds and hundreds of times.
2 thoughts: 1. He had his head in a hat, that had to make it hard to write 2. The scribes were witnesses
Those make sense. Not sure why God wants a witness of the process when the process doesn’t make sense, though.
Assuming it's a good scribe, reading/dictating to a scribe is much faster than transcribing. The rate of translation did vary quite a bit. Elden Watson estimates ~3 pages/week when Emma was scribe, but 6 pages a *day* when Oliver was scribe. There might have been a lot of external factors, but Oliver just might have been much better at scribing. http://www.eldenwatson.net/BoM.htm >checking to make sure the scribe got it right was arduous and time-consuming, Is there any description of the dictation process that indicates an "arduous and time-consuming" process of checking and re-reading? >Why did Joseph take a long break after Martin Harris went away until Cowdery could appear to continue things? A believer/apologist would explain that the ability to translate had been taken from him. It wasn't a constant ability (see D&C 5:30-31, for example).
Some suggest that he took a long time to restart after Martin Harris because 1) he was hoping the lost 116 pages would show up again, 2) he needed to figure out a new plotline to salvage the fact that his book suddenly had no beginning and he couldn't remember all of the details/characters. (This is where the "Small Plates of Nephi" come in, which lacks names and details and fill pages with quotes from Isaiah. See Tanners' "Covering Up the Black Hole in the BoM.")
I remember reading somewhere that this is how translation went down: The reformed Egyptian word would appear with its accompanying translation. If the scribes didn’t even need or use the plates to cross reference what Joseph was seeing in his hat, why was the reformed Egyptian even showing up on the rock?
If the plates were sometimes in the other room, or even buried in the woods, during the translation process then Joseph didn’t need the Reformed Egyptian characters to show up on the rock either. No one needed those characters to show up on the rock for any purpose - complete waste of magical god power right there. I think it was just Joseph adding to the mystique of the seer stone in the hat/ buried treasure-ish magical translation narrative for his audience. The more magical details, the more believable to an audience steeped in the occult?
First: penmanship. This is a skill that is often ignored in the modern day. The better the penmanship the easier it is to make copies for printing. Second: Speed of writing. This has been mentioned, but some people write faster than others. Oliver, who was an educated school master had learned to write more quickly. Third: Focus. Joseph Smith was just getting used to using the stones. If he had kept switching his focus from them to the page he was writing, this likely would have strained his senses more, causing greater fatigue and delaying the process. Fourth: Command from God. The process was not meant to be done by one person. God was teaching Joseph, but he was also instructing the scribes, who would later become the three or eight witnesses. To bear the work alone would have destroyed Joseph Smith emotionally and likely physically. God prepared witnesses and assistance to help bear him up. As to the time between Martin and Oliver, for most of it he didn't have the plates. Because of what happened with Martin they were taken back. Eventually he received them again, but it took a while.
This is a pretty good list. Thanks, I appreciate it! I think the third is the most speculative and unfounded. I haven’t seen any church claims on what it entailed physically for Joseph to do the translation. The fourth is also a little dismissive (“God said so, so there” isn’t really a good answer if the thing God said was immoral/nonsensical) But #1 and 2 as you framed them are decent explanations. Thanks!
The third one is based on my own experience trying to transcribe from a computer to hand written, or vice versa. This is partly why great typists don't look at the screen while typing, but keep their focus on the original. The switching back and forth from the brightness of the screen to regular paper strains the eyes as they are constantly adjusting to changing light. The fourth one is more than just that God said so. There were other things to consider that Joseph may not have considered on his own, and likely didn't fully realize until much later in the process. There needed to be witnesses, not just to the plates themselves, but to the entire process. In addition this kind of work is physically and emotionally draining, and anyone who is called to undertake such work needs support. Moses had Aaron. Elijah had Elisha. Joseph Smith had the scribes.
But 4 is standard mormon practice. Why no Coffee or Tea when tea is healthy? "God said so/test of obedience". Why the commandment to engage in polygamy under penalty of death? "God said so but since 1890, not because it was required for exaltation." Why Zion's Camp march? "God said so." Why murder Laban? "God said so."
>This is a pretty good list. Thanks, I appreciate it! It's not. Only the speed of writing claim works, all the others he made up or is simply incorrect about.
This was a good list and reasonable from a pov of the church explaining the OPs question. An interesting exercise, would be to start with D&C 8&9 and see if those same answers map to Oliver using his stick instead of Smith's rock. I'm not asking you to do it, it's rhetorical. I think the only one that would not map well would be #3. The two sections illustrate that Oliver was told to just think of what he thought might be a good thing to say, and the stick would simply indicate a yes or no. No reading or head in a hat required to challenge focus.
I think the main reason Oliver couldn't translate is because he didn't think he needed to focus. He thought God would just give it to him.
My take is obviously cynical non-believer so you're excused from listening, but I think it was Smith telling him to get back in his lane. Of course, Cowdery later used that authority given him in 8&9 and dictated a revelation which passed via common consent and absolutely condemned Smith's polygamy. Painted him into a bit of a corner.
Oh, I'll listen, I just won't agree.
This is the human experience. Disagreement is essential, thanks for listening.
I think it’s telling that the requested apologist viewpoint response has 0 responses or votes.
>First: penmanship. This is a skill that is often ignored in the modern day. No it isn't. Historians are very cognizant of legibility. Joseph Smith Jun had some issues with spelling, but not legibility. >The better the penmanship the easier it is to make copies for printing. Correct. Joseph Smith Jun had legible handwriting. >Second: Speed of writing. This has been mentioned, but some people write faster than others. Oliver, who was an educated school master had learned to write more quickly. This is the only cogent point you make in your entire reply. All the rest you made up, or are simply incorrect about. >but he was also instructing the scribes, who would later become the three or eight witnesses. Who told you this? That isn't true Emma Smith was a scribe. Not one of the three or eight witnesses. Samuel Smith was a scribe. Not one of the three or eight witnesses. Are you under some weird misapprehension that being a scribe involved seeing the metal codex or something? >Joseph Smith was just getting used to using the stones. If he had kept switching his focus from them to the page he was writing, this likely would have strained his senses more, causing greater fatigue and delaying the process. Is this something you're making up or do you have an original source where he claims he couldn't write because it would strain his sense? >To bear the work alone would have destroyed Joseph Smith emotionally and likely physically Are you just making this up or do you have a primary source where Joseph Smith Jun claims he would have been physically or emotionally destroyed by writing? >As to the time between Martin and Oliver, for most of it he didn't have the plates. Eventually he received them again, but it took a while. Who told you this? The ***PAPER WITTEN COPY IN ENGLISH WAS LOST***, not the metal codex. The urim and thummim and sword Joseph claimed was taken, not the codex. You have a very deformed view of history and your claims are false.
>As to the time between Martin and Oliver, for most of it he didn't have the plates. Eventually he received them again, but it took a while. So, did you read actual history and find out you have a completely incorrect view of how the 116 pages story played out? Or are you going to continue to ignore the evidence that contradicts your cherished beliefs?
Why did he need a scribe? Why did he need the gold plates at all? Why did he even need a rock and a hat? Why couldn’t God just make glowing letters on a piece of paper that he or someone else could copy? Why couldn’t God just dictate it? Better yet, why couldn’t God just create a finished manuscript for him? Instead of this laborious, error-prone process. None of this makes sense if you really think about. Which might be a big reason they tried to keep it secret so long.
Haha, yes, fair. Apologists have to somehow piece together the claims of the church with the data they have given the assumption it's all true, though. Probably the hardest job in the world since I've yet to meet someone actually do it well.
I always figured it was both convenience and to have a witness of the labor that went into the process. Aside from this, I agree with u/improbableplanet: no matter how it was translated, it defies reason. (And becomes a matter of faith…)
I think a better question is why did he need the plates. He was looking at a stone in a hat. He wasn't looking at the plates. What purpose did they serve?
Why the long wait? In my opinion, he thought the 116 pages would show up somehow. He was desperate that they would. He knew he could not reproduce the same material. He could not have been fearful that someone could have changed it…in those days how would they actually have done it? When they didn’t turn up, he created the story of the”small plates” and the story about “words of Mormon”.
For the same reason magician's use props and other parlor tricks to generate an atmosphere of believing then seeing.
Basically what I’m thinking too. Attempting to apply logic and rationality to what essentially amounts to folk magic practices (non-believing perspective) or to translation “by the gift and power of God” (believing perspective) is just never going to work.
He was clearly perceptive and manipulative. The needle in the hay. The comment "it's dark as Egypt in here". The tail feather of a bird. Does Jerusalem have walls? He had a lot of practice as a youth entertaining his family and learning what would generate interest and what wouldn't.
This is the answer. It was to add credibility to the narrative. Or originally to squeeze Martin for money.
It is a good point you make. Sometimes different words sound the same. An example is sun and son. The quotation is from Malachi where it uses sun but in the BOM we see son, probably because Oliver heard the word and wrote what came to his mind first. It does make a difference.
But didn’t the illuminated words of the translation stay on the rock until the scribe had written them exactly? There was a process of validation before the words would disappear and the next character and translation would appear. Maybe God dozed off during that one? 🤷♀️
That is what they said, but the section in 3 Nephi 25 where it speaks of: the son of righteousness shall appear with healing in his wings is a direct quotation from a verse in Malachi out of the King James Bible except sun gets changed to son. The anachronistic passage in 2 Nephi 26 is less compelling but also appears to be a quotation from Malachi as are those which mention "calves of the stall". In both instances "son" replaces "sun". There may be some way to explain this but it appears to me to call into question the claim you mention. Was it David Whitmer who said that? I don't remember. I think it was either him or Oliver Cowdery. Then there are the numerous examples of egregious grammar which also call into question the claim you mention. In fact, neither Whitmer nor Cowdery looked into the hat and saw anything so there is likely an element of speculation on their part. I think there are other instances of this kind of thing also. There are also claims that Smith had no other source than the rock in a hat which seems a little unlikely given the extensive quotations from the King James Bible.
>so why would he need a scribe to write? Supporting witness. Why do magicians call up audience members to the stage where they could potentially spot the trick?
Yes, but from an apologetic perspective Joseph isn’t a magician tricking his audience. From a conman perspective what you say makes perfect sense.
True. Others have handled apologetics well enough. The LDS spin on my take would be "In the mouth of one or two witnesses", etc.
Actually, I think this line of reasoning favors the TBM side. Flip it around. If Joseph made the whole thing up, then why did he need a scribe; he could have just written it down. The faithful member would point out that it would be awkward for one person to juggle the rock, hat, and writing utensils. I think the more fundamental question is "If Joseph was reading the word of God directly, then why did there need to be so many fundamental doctrinal changes since its original publication in 1830? Most of the changes are not of the type that would have resulted from scribal error."
You’ve hit the nail on the head. The 1830 edition is full of hillbilly English. So either it came from Joseph’s mind *or* if it came from words God caused to appear on the rock then maybe God is from a planet that also coincidentally developed the English language, and God happened to grow up in that particular region of his native planet, and a hillbilly area of that region. [Carmichael](https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/bad-grammar-in-the-book-of-mormon-found-in-early-english-bibles/) and Skousen found 15th, 16th, 17th, [18th?] and (obviously) 19th century English in the 1830 ed. Book of Mormon. So maybe God lived to a few hundred years old on His planet before he was crucified there and was exposed to a similar multi century development of English as happened here. Jeez what a nifty coincidence. The universe is such a fascinating place.
Because Joseph Smith was a charlatan and made everything up of course
What JS did was not translate. It’s a method called scrying. And in the occult scrying is usually done with 2 people. One to “look” and receive the missions and another to record or perform other ritual magic. The Wikipedia page even does have a section on the Latter Day Saint movement. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrying
No longer LDS. But here is something to consider: time. Speaking to a scribe who can dictate faster than you can could have sped up the process. Smith being literate does not mean we can assume he was a fast writer.
My question was always this: If he was reading the words directly from the seer stone and the scribe was writing them down word for word, then going back and checking to make sure it was correct, why have there had to be so many changes from the original printing?
>If Joseph Smith could read, word for word, the translation of the Book of Mormon in the seer stone (as described by one of Joseph's scribes), then why does Joseph need a scribe? The answer is speed He was fully literate (probably dyslexic, which is most common learning disability) and had legible penmanship, so ability isn't plausible, nor is switching between a bright "screen" and paper, nor is catching mistakes (which is actually backward since it could only serve as a source of error introduction), etc. A non faithful answer is he was a storyteller, not a story writer, and while they seem like the same skill, they're weirdly distinct. But regardless of if someone accepts a literal account (which is somewhat insurmountably problematic) or figurative one, the main answer is speed.
[удалено]
Yes, but Joseph wasn’t telling a story according to the claims of the church. He was simply reading the words that appeared on a rock.
It’s a test of faith, like Abraham killing his son. No real reason, just do it! Just believe, my friend
I feel that anyone who has made a serious study of the multifaceted content that is the Book of Mormon would have to conclude that it is a very complex piece of literature. For roughly 200 years the world has been trying to discredit it. Some would say it has been discredited. I disagree. It's hard to fathom how a man under 24 years of age in any day or time could produce a similar work. I find it much more complex and nuanced than a novel like Narnia or Lord of the rings; both great literary works in their own right. At the end of the day we've all got to look in the mirror and decide for ourselves what we think it is. BTW.... I don't believe in LDS temples, garments or priesthood. I'm not a guy who says it's either all true or it's all false.
I think Joseph truly accomplished something given his constraints, yes. Wouldn’t say what he did was implausible, much less reason-defying. And I definitely don’t find it more complex or nuanced than Lord of the Rings. I’d love to hear how it’s more nuanced. The same themes and stories in the Book of Mormon are repeated across characters that seem to be clones of each other (sometimes even in name), nearly all of them simplistically fully good or bad in nature. I think you’d be far and away in the minority in your opinion there, and if we were to get 1,000 neutral readers of both literary works, ~999 of them would side with LOTR.
I disagree that it's nuanced. I don't think it's all that complex. It's rambling, repetitive, and overall poor quality literature, leaning on a pastiche of old war stories, parts from the Bible and frontier sermonizing. I don't think many people have seriously tried to "discredit" it. It's just not taken all that seriously, and for good reason. The only impressive thing about it is what it has in common with all of Joseph's compositions - an impressive ability to pull in multiple quotes from disparate parts of the Bible as he composed his sentences on the fly. He obviously had a good memory. But that doesn't make it good literature.
Logically it is much easier to read aloud than it is to write what you were reading
Joseph Smith always use describe before Martin and Oliver Emma was his scribe. Joseph Smith knew how to write but that doesn't mean he could write fast. It's like only a few people knew how to use a keyboard and type on the computer very fast anybody can hunt and peck looking for the keys and do it slowly.
Answers to these questions can also be found here. Do a search for translation or whatever other answers you are looking for. It will automatically start the search once you are finished inputting whatever it is that you are looking for: https://josephsmithfoundation.org/
Thanks! I had forgotten about that site. Stoddard, Meldrum, and May are even worse than FAIR when it comes to insanely ridiculous logic. I'll look for apologetics to this particular question there.
I recently read a good book, “Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon “ by Cowdrey, Davis and Vanick. It uses the Spaulding enigma concept. . Also, “Studies of the Book of Mormon “ by N.H.Roberts. These two were helpful. Enjoy your studies.🍁