NOM

the 4-part podcast on Book of Mormon translation was fantastic!




p.s (I contribute what I can)

Hear, Hear!

Awwwww! Thanks so much!!!

What started out as a brief comment about an ill-conceived argument for why Joseph couldn't have used a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon expanded into a five-hour frolic down many a new and exciting rabbit hole.

I am glad you like the result.

I'll just drop these selections from the original manuscript here without comment:

“therefore I have wrote this epistle”, (3 Nephi 3:5)
“Adam and Eve, which was our first parents" (1 Nephi 5:11)
"and this he done that he might subject them to him" (Alma 2:10)
"that they did not fight against God no more" (Alma 23:7)
“they done all these things”, (Ether 9:29)
“when they had arriven to the promised land”, (Mosiah 10:15)
“and also much horses”, (Enos 1:21)
“as I was a going thither”, (Alma 10:8)
“and this shall be your language in them days”, (Helaman 13:37)
“they were not sufpiceentle strong to meet them”, (Alma 56:23)
“whosoever will com may come & partak of the waters of life”, (Alma 42:27)
"the workmenshup thereof was exceding fine”, (145:34)
"their yuarrelings & their plunders there idoleti and their whoardoms“, (Alma 50:21)
"i also beheld a Strait and mrrough path which came”, (1 Nephi 8:20)
"after that i had truvededror the space for of menny hours”, (1 Nephi 8:8)
(R. Skousen, Grammatical-variation, interpreterfoundation.org, R. Skousen, The Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon: Typographical Facsimile of the Extant Text, FARMS)

Hey Consiglieri, maybe you've already covered this?

I just got started on the discrediting aspect of David Whitmer's testimony. Haven't had the chance to get much further. But I noticed that regarding David's testimony you make the point that his testimony of the method of translation should be strongly regarded as valid since he would have gotten it directly through conversation with Joseph.

I would go a step further.

As I recall David is listed by the church itself as being one of the scribes for the BofM. His handwriting was definitively identified on the portions of the original manuscript that are extant.

Thus, his testimony of the method of translation would be as a direct participant in that process rather than just hearing Joseph explain the process through conversation. Wasn't sure if you were aware of that fact.

Maybe you cover it later in the podcast and I just haven't gotten there yet? If so, my apologies.

I enjoyed the part where you mentioned footnote #31 from the Church essay. The essay says that Oliver testified under oath that the BOM was translated by "two transparent stones, resembling glass, set in bows." I then followed your lead and read the whole article. What a can of worms! If the footnote had been from an actual trial, it would have some veracity, but to quote from a second hand, or likely third hand source, and then imply that it was actual testimony, is sadly, not beneath the unnamed scholars who wrote that essay for the Church. I wouldn't want my name on that essay either. Consig.- that was great. Thanks.
I also liked how you diced up footnote #32. Hope you got my donation of two bits x 10.

It's why they don't want smart people........they have dumbed things down for decades, and this is precisely why.........