Mormonism is changing the story of the Book of Mormon and The Book of Abraham from translations from original sources to revelations.

I strongly suggest we get these definitions tight in our minds so as to challenge this effort. They are very different words, not to be used interchangeably. I don't think this is going to be difficult as the narrative has always been that these books were translations from original source materials. The sciences have made it impossible for the traditional Mormon narratives to remain credible so they will now try and change the story and convince people that the history of telling the story is irrelevant to their faith in the scripture. As incredible as it was to believe the translation narrative, it is now impossible to accept the revelation story, because that is o in known conflict with their historical narrative.

Translation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation

Revelation (scroll down and you will see that the LDS Church has contributed sizable contribution to Latter-Day Saint revelation).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation

Inspiration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration

There is no history or narrative of the Book of Mormon or The Book of Abraham being sources as revelations or inspirations.

The Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are works of fiction, sold as translations soon to be adapted as revelations.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2013 05:11AM by gentlestrength.

This is a very important point that somehow becomes moot to apologists and true believers. Inspiration is not revelation, and neither inspiration nor revelation is translation. Also, believing something is very different from "knowing" something.

Yes, they are different. True inspiration or revelation perhaps could guide a more correct interpretation or translation, but the concepts themselves are certainly distinct.

This mumbo jumbo makes me crazy. Whenever I hear this from a TBM, I just remind them that Joseph Smith was not confused about the word translation. Then I ask why they are going against the word of their prophet. That usually shuts them up, or just confuses them.

I use the same tactic when they try to say the Hill Cumorah was not in NY. Joseph was not confused about the location of the HC. Why don't you believe the words of the prophet? I get frustrtaed looks.

I thinks it's funny when the apologists contradict Joseph's own words.

My understanding is that the conflation of "translation" and "reveleation" comes from Joseph Smith's "translation" of the Bible. It is claimed that he did this "translation" without source materials, therefore it was clearly just "revelation". Is this assumption true? Do we have any statements from Joseph or his contemporaries concerning the process?

I am only aware of one piece of near-direct evidence, and it does NOT support the idea that translation = revelation. The parchment of John mentioned in D&C 7 was translated by Joseph Smith after he saw the parchment via the stone. Was the rest of the Bible "translation" done the same way? As an early teen, I had an RM Sunday School teacher describe the JST as being done the same way, with Joseph seeing the original source material for the Bible and receiving the translation like with the BoM.

Good post. This, too, drives me nuts. I'd rant, but who could say it better than what's here.