A question about Skousen's screwball theory.

[_Fence Sitter]

Yes I know the title to my OP is redundant.

But Shulem's thread about "Alpha and Omega" being in the Book of Mormon got me thinking about loose vs tight translation, how the same defender will apply both as needed to explain problematic words and so on.

So I know Skousen claims that we find evidence in the Book of Mormon of a "pre-translation" or edit or something that revised the written words in the Book of Mormon so that it reflects 1400± AD word usage.

We know Joseph Smith claims that Moroni gave him a set of plates on which he, Moroni, had engraved the Book of Mormon, a set of plates that dated back to 4th century AD. So how did the revisions Skousen claims are there, make there way on to a set of plates inscribed a thousand years earlier?

I know, the obvious question here is: That's what bothers you about Skousen's theory?" and the answer is no, there are a whole lot of other issues, but this one would seem to be problematic even for the faithful.

If one advocates a tight translation, then the 14th century verbiage cannot be there, if one advocates a loose translation, it shouldn't be there either because it would be in 19th century usage of someone trying to mimic the Bible.

Are we supposed to believe that Moroni would spend all that time instructing Joseph Smith about the Book of Mormon and its contents, 4 whole years, yet when it came time to translate it God brought in a ghost translator(s) from the 13th century to ad lib the translations? That Moroni spoke English, is clear enough, why can't he just write the English versions of what he wrote onto the stone?

Whether or not one believes in a tight or loose translation of both, how 14th century translations got on the plates and or Book of Mormon is problematic.

Seems like yet another example of picking and choosing the translation method based on the type of problem the word creates. In other words it is pure ad hoc.

I know there are as many different competing theories about individual aspects of Mormonism as there are apologist. Is there a single aspect theory out there that does not in some way conflict with any other theory? Is there anyone out there that can sit down and start to finish give explanations for how this whole thing happened that are consistent from beginning to end, or in Book of Mormon word "Alpha to Omega"?

[_Dr Exiled]

It's clearly a 19th century invention. Frankly, it boggles the mind the lengths apologists will go to retain historicity and Skousen/Carmack need their heads examined. Nevertheless, there is always a possibility in the apologist mind that the same god who planted dinosaur bones in Vernal made the nephite and lamanite civilization and their dna disappear.