consiglieri wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:20 pm
. . .
would it not be the most reasonable thing to believe that the Book of Mormon has as much to do with what was on the plates as the Book of Abraham has with what was on the papyri?
In a sense some apologists are almost already there with the "more loose" translation theory, while TBMs hold fast to the "tight" translation theory.
For the BoA, apologist claim the papyri was a "catalyst" for Joseph to receive divine inspiration - what was physically on the papyri does not matter. To account for BoA anachronisms, the apologist stance is that Joseph filtered and projected the inspired ideas through his 19th century cultural and environmental lens. The words written are what Joseph through inspiration thought Abraham should of said.
For the BoM "more progressive loose" translation theories, it is almost exactly the same, the plates were a "catalyst" for Joseph to receive divine inspiration - what is physically on the plates does not matter. In fact the plates did not even have to be in the room to be translated, and many times were hidden somewhere else (such as in the woods). To account for Book of Mormon anachronisms (such as 19th century ideas), the apologist stance is that Joseph filtered and projected the inspired ideas through his 19th century cultural and environmental lens. The words written are what Joseph through inspiration thought Nephi/Mormon/Moroni and Jesus/God should of said.
D&C 9:8-10 provides the model on how to receive revelation and how to do the BoM translation - study it out in your mind - what you think it should say, and if you receive confirmation ("yes/no" answer e.g. burning in the bosom) then what you thought it should say is correct. In this model, the plates do not even have to be there, you only have to think about what the plates may have said, come up with something and if you get a yes/no confirmation (feel good about it), you've got a translation. A perfect example of confirmation bias at the extreme.
It appears to me that Oliver wanted some kind of "yes/no" physical confirmation that they were on the right track, e.g. divining rod/seer stone/Urim and Thummim. As a side note the Urim and Thummim is like a Magic 8 ball or rolling dice, capable of only answering "yes/no" questions see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urim_and_Thummim. Does anyone know how a seer stone is actually really suppose to work? not the LDS version, but the folk magic version in the 1800s? Were you to look into it and visually see things, or were you to ask questions of it and do something like spin it with the resulting orientation giving you a binary yes/no answer?
This model even though canonized in the D&C is not accepted by TBMs - for the BoM, Joseph look into the Urim and Thummim and read off each word exactly as translated by God, because that is one of the many stories Joseph and Oliver told (which contradicts D&C 9:8-10).
If most TBMs took the time to understand the "more loose" answer they would classify the apologists as heretics.
I'll be quiet now.