Why did he need to have the plates at all? If he couldn't translate from the plates, what's the point in having them on the table next to him covered in a cloth? This doesn't make sense.
i’ve heard other apologists say it’s so joseph could have faith to translate. as if the person who allegedly saw god and christ (though that story wasn’t propagated til later) would need a boost of faith. unfortunately the rest of us don’t get the same consideration. also makes you wonder why nephi had to murder laban in cold blood if god could have just revealed to him what was on the plates. 🤷♀️
As the physical evidence of The Book of Mormon The witnesses of the Book of Mormon are some of the most solid evidences we have of its existance. Critics love to use second and third hand accounts regarding the witnesses, but the first hand accounts overwhelmingly support physical plates that Joseph had and that they actually did see the plates. David Whitmer (who was the member of the three witnesses that never came back to the church) personally made sure that his testimony of the Book of Mormon/the plates was writen on his grave. He wanted to make sure that, even in death, his personal testimony of his witness of the plates was absolutely certain. Also, as a reply to @ZelfOntheShelf above, Joseph wasn't translating the plates in any sort of conventional way. Joseph staring at plates of Reformed Egpytian and trying to translate them through any sort of conventional method would have been about as useful as you or I trying to stare at Mandrian Chinese and translating that to English. If Joseph actually did translate the plates by the power of God then his ability to do so is irrelevant to whether or not he was physically looking at the plates (which wouldn't be of any help anyways). If God helped Joseph translate the plates then his power to do so would still be in place regardless of whether Joseph was looking at the physical words on the plates Another possible reason why I think physical plates would have been important is because it preserved a very important aspect of the human elements of the book. A common fundementalist evangelical perspective (which, unfortunately seeped its way into Mormonism at a signficant level) is that scripture is just essentially written by God and there aren't any truly human aspects to them. However, that's clearly not the case. When you read the Bible you can see human elements and perspectives written all over it. When you read the Book of Mormon you can see the human interpretations and perspectives all over it. That's not just the case for Joseph Smith's viewpoint (although that certainly is there. His role as the translator certainly did have a huge impact on how the Book of Mormon was ultimately written). That's also the case for the various prophets who wrote their perspectives and experiences into the Book of Mormon. As I said above, God is capable of having those perspectives cary over regardless of plates, so I do think my point above is a far stronger reason why the plates were important even if Joseph didn't physically look at them. However, I think that it makes sense that transfering over that human perspective may still have been much easier/more efficent if those prophets/writers had written their perspective down beforehand (even if Joseph wasn't looking at the physical words they wrote)
The narrative for decades had no mention of a seer stone and top hat. We were told for decades the plates were in front of him with a scribe behind a curtain. The Urim and Thummim were used. The current BM was mostly translated with the top hat and seer stone. How are we to make sense of this when church history said otherwise for decades? People were excommunicated for saying otherwise. Yet there is a church video online with President Nelson showing the current narrative. Total gaslighting.
If none of it is historical or true what makes it any better than a good moral fairy tale. Why base your life around it? Why give 10% to a church? Why not learn the life lessons and move on to another good book? Why keep reading it every day for the rest of your life?
At 13:13 Bushman says Moses and the Book of Abraham are pseudepigrapha. If he admits those two books aren't literally true, I wonder if he would also classify the Book of Mormon as pseudepigrapha.
I took it to mean that everything could be categorized as pseudepigrapha in that none of it (including writings in the Bible or out of it, similarly attributed to biblical figures) was created by the original person. Also I think trying to black-or-white categorize the Book of Mormon as such or not is unhelpful. But rather would only satisfy someone hoping to dismiss it entirely.
In an interview on the Bill Reel podcast Brother Bushman mentions he believes in the historicity of the Book of Mormon but knows smart members in good standing without that same conviction. He allows space for a different narrative. In that same episode he mentions this stance is fairly new for him. (This is as I remember it anyways)
Professor Bushman's overview of the translation has two issues. First, he makes no mention of the Jaredite/Nephite interpreters (sometimes called the Urim & Thummim) provided by God for the purpose of translating the plates (JS-H 1:35). Yet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery repeatedly testified that these interpreters were central to the process. Second, he relies on Emma Smith's supposed account in the document called the "Last Testimony of Sister Emma." However, this document is very problematic, and there are good reasons to view it as primarily the work of Joseph Smith III, not Emma. And indeed, Joseph III later completely repudiated the seer stone account of the origin of the Book of Mormon. See the recent study "By Means of the Urim & Thummim."
Mercy, this is hard to listen to. Mental gymnastics at there best. It’s like trying to frame Santa Claus as someone who really exists but doing so from obscure angles. This is classic starting with the conclusion in mind versus letting evidence drive the conclusion. These people aren’t idiots, I see them all as smart and genuine humans. It’s just fascinating how the mind works and protects things we hold dear for reasons hard to articulate.
I'm only 10 minutes through this video but I guess I have a hard time understanding why Joseph would translate how he did. Like he has the Urim and Thumim and the plates but instead he chooses to translate via seer stone and hat. I am aware that he more or less stated that he was more or less more comfortable with the seer stone but that explanation still feels kind of incomplete.
Is Bushmam saying that the Book of Abraham and Book of Moses are psuedapigrapha?, as in, it is not historical, accurate translation? Is this a rhetorical device that he is using?
@@andrewharris8900 More specifically, is he saying that it is Joseph Smiths work, written in Abraham's voice? Is he saying the Book of Abraham is not an actual history?
Just read the gospel topics essay about the book of Abraham - the church admits that none of the book of Abraham is a direct translation so it has to be created by Joseph Smith which makes it by definition pseudepigrapha
@@NCAd919 The essays admit that the translation is not from the papyri that we have. They leave open whether it was translated from papyri we don't have, whether it was a real history that Joseph Smith received through revelation. Pseudapigrapha is fan fiction. The church still claims that the Book of Abraham is real history, not a fiction.
Interesting outlook.. With all things Mormon you seemingly have to stretch a long way to justify the BOM and it's theology. Nothing is clear or easy in Mormonism. Having taught LDS doctrine it gets more murky with age. The LDS scholars are brilliant apologists but I fear the word of God was meant to be much more clear.
so touching for an excellent video
Why did he need to have the plates at all? If he couldn't translate from the plates, what's the point in having them on the table next to him covered in a cloth? This doesn't make sense.
i’ve heard other apologists say it’s so joseph could have faith to translate. as if the person who allegedly saw god and christ (though that story wasn’t propagated til later) would need a boost of faith. unfortunately the rest of us don’t get the same consideration.
also makes you wonder why nephi had to murder laban in cold blood if god could have just revealed to him what was on the plates. 🤷♀️
As the physical evidence of The Book of Mormon
The witnesses of the Book of Mormon are some of the most solid evidences we have of its existance. Critics love to use second and third hand accounts regarding the witnesses, but the first hand accounts overwhelmingly support physical plates that Joseph had and that they actually did see the plates. David Whitmer (who was the member of the three witnesses that never came back to the church) personally made sure that his testimony of the Book of Mormon/the plates was writen on his grave. He wanted to make sure that, even in death, his personal testimony of his witness of the plates was absolutely certain.
Also, as a reply to @ZelfOntheShelf above, Joseph wasn't translating the plates in any sort of conventional way. Joseph staring at plates of Reformed Egpytian and trying to translate them through any sort of conventional method would have been about as useful as you or I trying to stare at Mandrian Chinese and translating that to English. If Joseph actually did translate the plates by the power of God then his ability to do so is irrelevant to whether or not he was physically looking at the plates (which wouldn't be of any help anyways). If God helped Joseph translate the plates then his power to do so would still be in place regardless of whether Joseph was looking at the physical words on the plates
Another possible reason why I think physical plates would have been important is because it preserved a very important aspect of the human elements of the book. A common fundementalist evangelical perspective (which, unfortunately seeped its way into Mormonism at a signficant level) is that scripture is just essentially written by God and there aren't any truly human aspects to them. However, that's clearly not the case. When you read the Bible you can see human elements and perspectives written all over it. When you read the Book of Mormon you can see the human interpretations and perspectives all over it. That's not just the case for Joseph Smith's viewpoint (although that certainly is there. His role as the translator certainly did have a huge impact on how the Book of Mormon was ultimately written). That's also the case for the various prophets who wrote their perspectives and experiences into the Book of Mormon.
As I said above, God is capable of having those perspectives cary over regardless of plates, so I do think my point above is a far stronger reason why the plates were important even if Joseph didn't physically look at them. However, I think that it makes sense that transfering over that human perspective may still have been much easier/more efficent if those prophets/writers had written their perspective down beforehand (even if Joseph wasn't looking at the physical words they wrote)
The narrative for decades had no mention of a seer stone and top hat. We were told for decades the plates were in front of him with a scribe behind a curtain. The Urim and Thummim were used. The current BM was mostly translated with the top hat and seer stone. How are we to make sense of this when church history said otherwise for decades? People were excommunicated for saying otherwise. Yet there is a church video online with President Nelson showing the current narrative. Total gaslighting.
Valuable video.
If none of it is historical or true what makes it any better than a good moral fairy tale. Why base your life around it? Why give 10% to a church? Why not learn the life lessons and move on to another good book? Why keep reading it every day for the rest of your life?
At 13:13 Bushman says Moses and the Book of Abraham are pseudepigrapha. If he admits those two books aren't literally true, I wonder if he would also classify the Book of Mormon as pseudepigrapha.
I took it to mean that everything could be categorized as pseudepigrapha in that none of it (including writings in the Bible or out of it, similarly attributed to biblical figures) was created by the original person. Also I think trying to black-or-white categorize the Book of Mormon as such or not is unhelpful. But rather would only satisfy someone hoping to dismiss it entirely.
Steve Otteson what does a book being true mean?
In an interview on the Bill Reel podcast Brother Bushman mentions he believes in the historicity of the Book of Mormon but knows smart members in good standing without that same conviction. He allows space for a different narrative. In that same episode he mentions this stance is fairly new for him. (This is as I remember it anyways)
He does so subtly at 19:00 through 20:38.
Professor Bushman's overview of the translation has two issues. First, he makes no mention of the Jaredite/Nephite interpreters (sometimes called the Urim & Thummim) provided by God for the purpose of translating the plates (JS-H 1:35). Yet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery repeatedly testified that these interpreters were central to the process. Second, he relies on Emma Smith's supposed account in the document called the "Last Testimony of Sister Emma." However, this document is very problematic, and there are good reasons to view it as primarily the work of Joseph Smith III, not Emma. And indeed, Joseph III later completely repudiated the seer stone account of the origin of the Book of Mormon. See the recent study "By Means of the Urim & Thummim."
Mercy, this is hard to listen to. Mental gymnastics at there best. It’s like trying to frame Santa Claus as someone who really exists but doing so from obscure angles. This is classic starting with the conclusion in mind versus letting evidence drive the conclusion. These people aren’t idiots, I see them all as smart and genuine humans. It’s just fascinating how the mind works and protects things we hold dear for reasons hard to articulate.
I'm only 10 minutes through this video but I guess I have a hard time understanding why Joseph would translate how he did. Like he has the Urim and Thumim and the plates but instead he chooses to translate via seer stone and hat.
I am aware that he more or less stated that he was more or less more comfortable with the seer stone but that explanation still feels kind of incomplete.
He did not use seer stones that's a fabrication by dissenters.
Do you not have access to the church website and the Gospel Topics Essays?
Is Bushmam saying that the Book of Abraham and Book of Moses are psuedapigrapha?, as in, it is not historical, accurate translation? Is this a rhetorical device that he is using?
He's just saying they're similar in the sense that they're all writings that came forth in another person's name.
@@andrewharris8900 More specifically, is he saying that it is Joseph Smiths work, written in Abraham's voice? Is he saying the Book of Abraham is not an actual history?
Just read the gospel topics essay about the book of Abraham - the church admits that none of the book of Abraham is a direct translation so it has to be created by Joseph Smith which makes it by definition pseudepigrapha
@@NCAd919 The essays admit that the translation is not from the papyri that we have. They leave open whether it was translated from papyri we don't have, whether it was a real history that Joseph Smith received through revelation. Pseudapigrapha is fan fiction. The church still claims that the Book of Abraham is real history, not a fiction.
It’s clear Joseph knew what translation meant in his history on Pearl of great Price he makes that very very clear! This is just sad and delusional
The power of God is mysterious.
I am with Bushman on this one.
Struggling to define the word "translate" / "translated" / "translation"? Really? ...uh...ok....
Interesting outlook.. With all things Mormon you seemingly have to stretch a long way to justify the BOM and it's theology. Nothing is clear or easy in Mormonism. Having taught LDS doctrine it gets more murky with age. The LDS scholars are brilliant apologists but I fear the word of God was meant to be much more clear.