Deseret News | What exactly were the Nephite interpreters? – 'Keeping the Faith' on MormonTimes.com

Reader comments
What exactly were the Nephite interpreters? – 'Keeping the Faith' on MormonTimes.com

Try this | 12:30 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

I prefer the “Wizard of Earthsea” quartet by Ursula Le Guin, an inspiring set of spiritual fantasy books. The story can be enjoyed on more than one level, and the prose is exceptional.

Very Biblical | 12:49 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

These instruments (not the same ones) are mentioned in the Bible at least 5 times and several ancient Prophets had access to them and used them when authorized to do so. God prepared them for His servants to do His work! Interesting that God would have the same agenda, isn't it?

Levi | 3:40 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

Russ Nelson back in 1993 acknowledged via a quote from Martin Harris that Joseph Smith put a stone in his hat and stuck his face in it to so-called "translate" it.

I missed this in your piece.

Comments continue below

Levi | 3:42 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

Whoops. Sorry. David Whitmer.

Hey, I happily admit when I've made a mistake!

:-)

Sally Hale | 7:47 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

Michael,

Please stop. You are in way over your head. Let someone from F.A.R.M.S. or a Mormon scholar write these articles.

Anonymous | 8:02 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

I agree. I am not mormon and could never put my head around some of the beliefs. These articles not only help confirm my non-belief in this stuff but these articles can also make a believer a non-believer.

RE: Very Bibical | 8:44 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

In (1Samuel 28: 1-10)The Bible tells of King Saul visiting the witch of Endor,who had a familiar spirit. Le Grand Richards in," A Marvelous Work and Wonder," says that the BoM has a familiar spirit.(Is 29:14)

BHR | 8:46 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

I've actually been enjoying Michael's articles. It will be interesting to see where he goes from here. A question for Sally Hale, what do you think a FARMS scholar would offer that Michael hasn't?

Charles | 8:53 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

The interpretor stones are now with wall street theifs being used for evil.

Sally Hale | 9:14 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

To BHR,

Expertise and a strong academic background in Church History. In short, credentials.

As far as it is translated | 9:14 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

Joseph Smith could not translate Hebrew or Greek: "The KJV(Gen 1:1)was mis-translated it read first,In the beginning ther head of Gods brought forth Gods"(HC Vol 6 p.475) The OT Greek translation(Septuagint Gen 1:1)says, In the beginning God(Ho Theos). not Gods,Joesph Smith must have used method 2, the KJV method.

BHR | 9:51 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

To Sally Hale,

Ever hear of the fallacy known as the "appeal to authority"? And how do you know he doesn't have a strong background in Church history-- academic or otherwise? Besides, what credentials are required to make the arguments he makes in his article? Either the arguments are good, or they are bad. If you have a problem with his logic or history, let's hear them and we'll see which one of you is right.

The question could be turned around on you in a similar polemical (and false) fashion: What are your credential's for critiquing Michael's column?

Sally Hale | 11:01 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

TO BHR,

Ever hear of a college degree or the benefits a degree from academia can bring to the table?

RE: BHR , false authority | 11:17 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

In (Abraham 1:15,16 and 2,8) God(Elohim)appears to to Abraham(BoM)and tells him his name is Jehovah. This is centuries before the name Jehovah was created or invented, The best conclusion is that Joseph Smith followed the KJV scholars artificial composite name(hybrid). Jehovah is the false form of the divine name Yahweh.(New Catholic Encyclopedia)

Anonymous | 12:36 p.m. Nov. 9, 2009

some of you people are funny. You claim that this is too fantastic of an idea, a prophet using a miraculous method to translate the word of God. It is almost as unbelievable as God creating a world, or creating you, or creating a human mind or heart. It is almost as crazy as thinking that the Lord could walk on the sea or heal a blind man or the deaf, huh? I think too many people have no faith, they tie the Lord's hands saying "He can't do that." Who are you to tie the Lord's hands or to say what He can or can't do? If it is too crazy of a story, maybe you should start with the miracle of your life. You exist. If you exist, then God exists and if He exists, then He can do whatever He pleases, despite what the world thinks or says.

Otis | 2:20 p.m. Nov. 9, 2009

Yet once again, I must remind the readers that Michael Ash's opinions in no manner reflect the opinions of the Church. Mr. Ash is not a Church leader or a Mormon scholar and his opinion are his alone.

to RE: BHR , false authority | 2:39 p.m. Nov. 9, 2009

Have you ever heard of useing the language of the people? For exampleall Traditional Christians use the name Jesus. However that is not the HEBREW name. It is the Greek name. If you want to focus on the translatiopn of names than you should call Jesus Joshua, or more correctly Yashua as the J is a late addition to the English language. So remember every time you say the name Jesus you are guilty of violating the same standard that you hold against Joseph Smith.

to RE: BHR , false authority | 2:42 p.m. Nov. 9, 2009

ONe more thing. The use of the word Christ is also the wrong word to use as it is the Greek form of Messiah.

Cats | 3:40 p.m. Nov. 9, 2009

To "Try This:" I know you think you're being very clever, but those are the kinds of things people write who have no intelligent counter arguments. Do you think that ridicule in any way invalidates truth? IT DOES NOT!

T0; BHR 2:39,2:42 | 3:46 p.m. Nov. 9, 2009

"Yeshua" is His Hebrew name,Jesus is the Hellenized-anglized form of Jesus, which means Salvation. He was called Yeshua, he never heard the name Jesus in his lifetime. David Chernoff, "Jews for Jesus."
Christ(Christos)Greek for Messiah. I read the OT and NT in Greek. I am not relying on the KJV for my translation as Joseph Smith did on(God's name) ,Jehovah, which makes no sense in Hebrew,(The universal Jewish Encycloped). Ihave the Greek NT handy,if challenged to translate.

To: BHR | 4:31 p.m. Nov. 9, 2009

There is a big difference to those who simply read the Bible, versus those who claim to be a prophet and or a seer,who claim to receive revelation and start there own religion.

German Bible | 6:57 p.m. Nov. 9, 2009

Actually Joseph Smith said that the German Bible was the most accurate.

“I have an old edition of the New Testament in the Latin, Hebrew, German and Greek languages. I have been reading the German, and find it to be the most nearly correct translation, and to correspond nearest to the revelations which God has given to me for the last fourteen years… The doctors (I mean doctors of law, not physic) say, "If you preach anything not according to the Bible, we will cry treason."... I thank God that I have got this old book; but I thank him more for the gift of the Holy Ghost. I have got the oldest book in the world; but I also have the oldest book in my heart, even the gift of the Holy Ghost. I have all the four Testaments. Come here, ye learned men, and read, if you can.”

BHR | 7:18 p.m. Nov. 9, 2009

To Sally Hale:
So apparently you're unfamiliar with the logical fallacy: "appeal to authority." Obviously a college degree in a relevant field lends credibility; but it doesn't make or break an argument. You side-stepped my questions as well as Michael's arguments.

To repeat what I said earlier: "Either the arguments are good, or they are bad. If you have a problem with his logic or history, let's hear them and we'll see which one of you is right."

And, "What are your credential's for critiquing Michael's column?"

Bill | 9:55 p.m. Nov. 9, 2009

To German Bible:

Since I can't read German or Greek please explain if the the translation of the English translation of the KJV of the greek is even close to the German translation. The other is if Joseph Translation closer still. I really am curious. Neither will change my mind that Joseph Smith is/was a prophet of God as well as a seer and revelator. It is known that a seer is more powerful than a prophet so it is more a curiosity question.

Bill | 9:58 p.m. Nov. 9, 2009

To Sally Hale and BHR:

I think that both of you need to understand that though I may disagree with some of the things of this article that many of the same answers he is giving here comes from FARMS and FAIR. Maybe Sally you should go there and see what is said on the same matters. In many circustances Michael is only restating arguments that have already been addressed in FARMS.

NonMormon | 9:58 p.m. Nov. 9, 2009

I have been following these articles by Mr. Ash. I find them fascinating and they offer a lot of insight for the "outsider". I don't find anything about the articles that would sway me either way. Although some of the things may be Mr. Ash's interpretation he always caveats with " it could be this or it could be that". Although I don't accept everything Mr. Ash as cold hard facts, I do find his attempt to " connect the dots" regarding LDS history to be be informative. There is certainly no dogma being challenged, only different ways to support the early claims of Joseph Smith. Thanks DN for the series.

A Man's Perspective | 11:33 p.m. Nov. 9, 2009

I agree with NonMormon. I am active LDS, and I enjoy Ash's articles, and I greatly appreciate them being published. These topics are being discussed in detail around the world, mostly on the internet, but in face-to-face conversation as well. While the subject matter is not generally what you would find in the three-hour block of meetings on Sunday, that does not mean they are not of importance. We Latter-Day Saints have a choice: we can expand our knowledge of these issues (while not neglecting the weightier spiritual issues) and learn of them and start defining the conversations, or we can let the critics control the conversations. In my personal opinion, these subjects that Mr. Ash addresses are being addressed - the problem is these issues are being addressed by the critics 9 times out of 10, and their faulty conclusions are being broadcast. We need to learn these things and set the record straight in the conversations. That is why it bothers me when believing LDS belittle Ash and these subjects. Come on. Learn of these issues so that WE (active LDS) define the conclusions in the conversations and not the critics.

To Cats | 12:25 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009

By no means am I using ridicule. I am entirely in earnest.

Not Me! | 12:43 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009

I think non-mormon is either Mr. Ash himself or a strong supporter just throwing him a bone. Me thinks I smell a rat.

Anonymous | 5:08 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009

I wusg Nr. Ash would write an article explaining why there are so few women who actually have names in the Book of Mormon. If they are Nephi's wife or Ishmael's daughter I don't count them. I want to know about women in the Book of Mormon who have a name and an individual story. I can only count three--Sarah, Isabel and Abish. Why don't we hear about noble women in the Book of Mormon like Eve, Mary,Ruth, Naomi, Martha, etc. in the Bible.

Joesph Smith no dummy | 6:51 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009

I know Mormons constantly say that JS couldn't have written the BOM because he was uneducated. Well, I guess he was smart enough to know German, Latin, Hebrew and Greek. Sounds like he was more educated than his followers give him credit.

kc mormon | 7:25 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009

BEcause some people put so much emphasis on when a term (like Jehovah) entered the English language they miss the point. The question when traslating is not was the term used at the time something was writen or even by people that speak the original language today. When trabslating you use terms that the people you are speaking to will understand. In Joseph Smiths day the common English word used was Jehovah so that is the word JOseph translated to. It is the same thing as when speaking to the American INdian the early LDS used the term Great Spirit for God. While they may or may not understand the word God the word they used was Great Spirit so that was the word used when speaking to them. The simple fact is that in any English translation of any work writen in Hebrew, early Greek, Egyption, or any other early language will use words not created at the time the work was writen. This is because those early languages only had a few thousand words in them were modern English has houndreds of thousands.

BHR | 10:30 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009

To "Joseph Smith no dummy":

Joseph learned these languages _after_ he translated the Book of Mormon.

Fredd | 11:25 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009

kc mormon-By your logic then horses, steel, elephants, etc are exactly what people of J. Smith's time thought they were?

NoRat | 12:30 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009

for NotMe @12:43
You flatter me way too much. I wouldn't know Mr. Ash from Adam's house cat. I was merely expressing the opinion of a Non-Mormon. As we say in the South " I don't have a dog in this fight." But thanks for calling me a rat. I should remember that the next time your Missionaries ring my door bell.

to Fredd | 2:16 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009

you are ignoring some very simple facts. Lets start with horses. First it may very well be that we call horses today were infact known in the Americas pre-Columbas. After all we know the Hunns had horses yet not a single horse ramain has been found with the Hunns. Also when people enter a new area they call animals and plants by names from their old areas. For example Natives called the Spanish horse a deer, people call bisons buffalo and prong horns antellop. For steel we must first understand that the Bible calls bronze steel so we should use the same standard. Also interestingly enough proof that NAtives did infact have metals long befor COlumbas has been found. As for elephants they are only mentioned in relations to the Jaradites. It could very well be that small groups of MAmaths did infact survive into the JAradite times.

Fred Vader | 2:15 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

to Fredd,

I really hope the Smithsonian doesn't read your post.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.