- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Without the internet and limited access to information, books were the be all end all. Since the Bible was widely read, I would naturally expect Joseph t have parts of it memorized. That said if he came to something familiar on the plates, I would expect him to translate using similar phrases he had memorized. This seems very natural to me. DBMormon wrote:Without the internet and limited access to information, books were the be all end all. Since the Bible was widely read, I would naturally expect Joseph t have parts of it memorized. That said if he came to something familiar on the plates, I would expect him to translate using similar phrases he had memorized. This seems very natural to me.
There are issues with this perspective if it’s chased to its ultimate conclusion. But this probably isn’t the place for it.
mackay11 wrote:DBMormon wrote:Without the internet and limited access to information, books were the be all end all. Since the Bible was widely read, I would naturally expect Joseph t have parts of it memorized. That said if he came to something familiar on the plates, I would expect him to translate using similar phrases he had memorized. This seems very natural to me.
Doesn’t work for me. Just read about this in rough stone tonight. Everyone reported Joseph looked in the hat and saw words and read the sentences then Oliver wrote them. He even spelled out the unusual names…so if Devine then he would have read them as they were written…not as he memorized or was familiar with them.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
if i believe that God dictates what he wants his children to know in unambiguous terms through his prophets, and only through his prophets, then the direct quoting of the KJV, the strange use of Jacobian English, and other things, like the “borrowing” of the Masonic ritual…would all profoundly bother me. but, since i don’t believe that god dictates his will verbatim through a single prophet, i have no issue with a person revered as a prophet pulling together existing materials to create “scripture”.
When I was young, before correlation took firm hold over church curriculum, we used to celebrate the differences between LDS beliefs about God and that of mainstream, creedal christianity. We used to talk more about how god did not create the world “from nothing”, but rather, organized matter that already existed. we used to say, in our temple endowment, that the adam and eve account was simply figurative. we used to encourage people to seek out of the best books wisdom and knowledge upon, upon which the church itself had no exclusive hold.
in this worldview, as god created the world from existing mateials, then it should be no surprise that his prophet should create an LDS world of scripture from existing materials.
yet today, i believe that mormonism is as fundamentalist as the hardest evangelical fundamentalism. while there is the “translated correctly” loophole for the bible, the book of mormon is the god-dictated verbatim word of the Lord, and every historical and truth claim, including the adam and eve account, is literally true. since is not the author of confusion, and is, according to the creeds, all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-benevolent, then god could not allow his word to be anything but verbatim. As Tad Callister said,
Tad Callister wrote:That is the genius of the Book of Mormon—there is no middle ground. It is either the word of God as professed, or it is a total fraud. This book does not merely claim to be a moral treatise or theological commentary or collection of insightful writings. It claims to be the word of God—every sentence, every verse, every page. Joseph Smith declared that an angel of God directed him to gold plates, which contained the writings of prophets in ancient America, and that he translated those plates by divine powers. If that story is true, then the Book of Mormon is holy scripture, just as it professes to be; if not, it is a sophisticated but, nonetheless, diabolical hoax.
I categorically reject Tad Callister’s statement. There is a middle ground: an understanding that god, however we define him or her, works through the mind and heart of inspired people, organizing from existing material to emerge a view of the divine. and coming to realize this Middle Way, the idea that Joseph borrowed KJV, used archaic language to sound more “scriptural”, and borrowed from other sources to create scripture and ritual pose no problems at all: it’s the Way things work.Wayfarer, I completely agree with you. There is middle ground for those who wish to find it. Those that just want the distinctive extreme options to make it easier to process are choosing to ignore a lot of other options. Borrowing from the KJV for the BoM is an important factor in seeing how God allows prophets to receive revelation and be influences by their world view, and as seers, put the world view and materials into a context that is expands our view of this world and continue to stretch to reach up to heaven.
Word for word dictation is just not the way it always works. There are other options, and therefore one doesn’t have to throw it all out as a hoax because of some parts that are not understood.
wayfarer wrote:As god created the world from existing mateials, then it should be no surprise that his prophet should create an LDS world of scripture from existing materials.
***Like***
I like Wayfarers perspective and generally thats my belief as well…. Too bad the church disagrees with us….
Sailing on Gods river in a boat made by men…..some of whom think owning the boat makes them Lord of the river.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.