I
became keenly interested in the translation method of the Book of Mormon after
reading the book, Joseph Smith's Seer Stones, by Michael Hubbard Mackay
and Nicholas J. Frederick.
A few months after the first post of the series, I published a thread (link) that raised a number of serious questions concerning the paradigm shift in the understanding of the translation method/process of the Book of Mormon by many Latter-day Saints. Foremost among those questions was the following:
The question that
needs to be asked is: WHY has Kirkham's and Nibley's assessments been
jettisoned by so many 21st century LDS scholars?
I
immediately followed the above question with some reasons provided by LDS
scholars who have embraced the paradigm shift—reasons which I am currently of
the opinion are somewhat dubious in nature.
Now,
up until just a few days ago, I thought I was pretty much the sole 'voice in
the wilderness' who had some serious questions concerning this paradigm shift
in the understanding of the Book of Mormon translation method. Last
week, I finished reading the recently published book, Seer Stone v. Urim and Thummim: Book of Mormon Translation on Trial—I
now know that I am not alone.
This book focuses on a number of the extant
'witnesses' of the Book of Mormon translation method/process, including
an important, detailed examination of David Whitmer. His chapter, "David
Whitmer vs. David Whitmer" (#14), is of particular interest, exposing a
number of inconsistencies in the recorded Whitmer statements.
I sincerely hope that folk interested in this topic
will purchase the book, and share their reflections on it.
Grace and peace,
David
