LDS LDS: Joseph Smith and Sacred Translation Stones

[drstevej]

This recent article (October 2015)in Ensign is posted on the LDS site and describes the objects Joseph Smith claims to have used to translate the Book of Mormon and describes his role as seer. In reading it I find it entire incredulous. This thread is for discussing/debate the claims made by the LDS in this article.

A few samples to kick this off

By the time Joseph Smith finished dictating his translation of the Book of Mormon to scribes in mid-1829, the meaning of seer had been further clarified in the text. The Book of Mormon contains a prophecy attributed to Joseph of Egypt declaring that one of his descendants—clearly Joseph Smith—would be “a choice seer” bringing other descendants “to the knowledge of the covenants” that God made with their ancestors (2 Nephi 3:6, 7).

In fact, historical evidence shows that in addition to the two seer stones known as “interpreters,” Joseph Smith used at least one other seer stone in translating the Book of Mormon, often placing it into a hat in order to block out light. According to Joseph’s contemporaries, he did this in order to better view the words on the stone.

Following the publication of the Book of Mormon in March 1830, Joseph Smith and his clerks began work on what is now known as the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, a prophetic revision of the King James Version. By Joseph’s account, using the Nephite interpreters for this translation project was not an option because he no longer had them.

Joseph’s history explains that “by the wisdom of God, [the plates and interpreters] remained safe in my hands, until I had accomplished by them what was required at my hand. When, according to arrangements, the messenger called for them, I delivered them up to him; and he has them in his charge until this day” (Joseph Smith—History 1:60).

He should have kept the stones for the Joseph Smith Translation because it mangles the NT.

His mother's statement I think is a better explanation for the content of the Book of Mormon.

"During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them."
Lucy Mack Smith, "History of Joseph Smith," p. 83

 

[AndOne]

Clearly this is a different sort of gospel - my question to any Mormon would be why does Joe Smith trump the apostle Paul?

 

[Ironhold]

Clearly this is a different sort of gospel - my question to any Mormon would be why does Joe Smith trump the apostle Paul?

On what basis do you make this claim?

 

[withwonderingawe]

Clearly this is a different sort of gospel - my question to any Mormon would be why does Joe Smith trump the apostle Paul?

Paul didn't need to translate anything

 

[Hammster]

On what basis do you make this claim?

I'm trying to understand this better. Is any doctrine from Smith different from that of Paul?

 

[Ironhold]

I'm trying to understand this better. Is any doctrine from Smith different from that of Paul?

What do you mean?

 

[Hammster]

What do you mean?

Did Smith contradict Paul in an effort to correct what he thought was incorrect doctrine?

 

[drstevej]

Did Smith contradict Paul in an effort to correct what he thought was incorrect doctrine?

Here's an example:

Romans 8:30 Greek
οὓς δὲ προώρισεν τούτους καὶ ἐκάλεσεν καὶ οὓς ἐκάλεσεν τούτους καὶ ἐδικαίωσεν οὓς δὲ ἐδικαίωσεν τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασεν

Romans 8:30 KJV
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Romans 8:30 JST >>> Joseph Smith "Translation"
Moreover, him whom he did predestinate, him he also called; and him whom he called, him he also sanctified; and him whom he sanctified, him he also glorified.

 

[Hammster]

Then it looks as if he did try to correct Paul.

 

[fatboys]

Then it looks as if he did try to correct Paul.

Do we age the originals of Paul's writings. No

 

[Hammster]

Do we age the originals of Paul's writings. No

I'm not sure of your point here.

 

[fatboys]

I'm not sure of your point here.

Oops wrong thread

 

[fatboys]

Oops wrong thread

Not went thread but wrong post

 

[Hammster]

Oops wrong thread

 

[fatboys]

He wasn't correcting Paul he was correcting what was lost in the translation process due to imperfect uninspired man.

 

[fatboys]

He wasn't correcting Paul he was correcting what was lost in the translation process due to imperfect uninspired man.

He was trying to get it back to a more pure intent of the original.

 

[Hammster]

He wasn't correcting Paul he was correcting what was lost in the translation process due to imperfect uninspired man.

And what transcripts did he use?

 

[Hammster]

He was trying to get it back to a more pure intent of the original.

Where do we find this original that he used?

 

[drstevej]

He wasn't correcting Paul he was correcting what was lost in the translation process due to imperfect uninspired man.

There are ZERO manuscripts that support his change and thousands that support the KJV and other translators. This is a deliberate change to promote works salvation. And additional evidence that Joseph Smith was a false prophet.

This is not a translation.

 

[Truthseeker1971]

Do we age the originals of Paul's writings. No

Paul's writings were written before AD 69 about the time he was executed.

One of the other things we know about the epistles is the fact that there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem. So if they were written after that time that event would have been mentioned