Book of Mormon geography

[_Tobin]

Did Oliver Cowdery say anything about his experience translating? He translated a few pages of the Book of Mormon too.

No, and there is nothing Skousen found in the manuscript that would show where he made the attempt, though here was one possibility that Skousen dismissed.

Did the Church have the handwritten scribe copy of the Book of Mormon when that was done? I believe it purports to show where this transition occurs from Oliver's handwriting into Joseph's and then back again.

[_Darth J]

I think the most likely explanation is that completely independent of Joseph Smith and with no input from him, numerous contemporary faithful Mormons, as well as non-Mormons, all spontaneously made up a story about English writing appearing on the seer stone.

And of course Joseph Smith and the Church remained silent on the matter, as they never felt it necessary to publish their own version of events in response to what they claimed to be false rumors about the origins of the Church.

Joseph Smith History 1:1

Owing to the many reports which have been put in circulation by evil-disposed and designing persons, in relation to the rise and progress of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, all of which have been designed by the authors thereof to militate against its character as a Church and its progress in the world—I have been induced to write this history, to disabuse the public mind, and put all inquirers after truth in possession of the facts, as they have transpired, in relation both to myself and the Church, so far as I have such facts in my possession.

[_Shulem]

I always love Paul who continually brings up the one area(Book of Abraham) apologists scurry out of sight when brought up.

I don't claim any expertise in that area, so I don't discuss it. However, I strongly suspect that the translation process Joseph used was consistent and that process explains much of what people find disconcerting about the Book of Abraham.

Having said that much, I will return to silence on the topic. It isn't what I am interested in.

I don't think you are being entirely truthful in your response. One need not be an expert to discuss critical points found inside the covers of Mormon canon. If only experts were able to discuss these matters than who would be left to talk about anything, Brant?

It is true that the experts find the translations and interpretations of Facsimile No. 3 disturbing. Why? Because the Explanations in Mormon canon are utterly preposterous and have been proven by the experts to be false.

The translation process employed by Joseph Smith is a moot point. It doesn't matter. What does matter is the end result; i.e., king's name, Shulem in the writing, Anubis is a slave, etc!

Paul O

[_Bond James Bond]

How about volunteering the time used to discuss the translation of a non-existant text at the nearest homeless shelter.

We actually had some Relief Society sisters attempt to help out at a local shelter. They were refused because they were Mormon. Oh well.

Seriously? That's awful. How did the shelter know they were Mormon and where was this at [roughly speaking]?

[_Brant Gardner]

With regard to your “text archeology” vs. “dirt archeology” model as described above, there is a fundamental problem. Your model requires the unwarranted assumption that the Book of Mormon text is what it purports to be.

First, the comparison comes from history and archaeology quite apart from the Book of Mormon. In the context of the Book of Mormon, it is relevant to the discussions of historicity rather than determinative of historicity.

Finally, one of the possible approaches (and to my mind a necessary one) is to assume that the text is historical and then compare it to history to discover whether or not it fits into the proper production culture. That assumption shouldn't dictate the conclusion, but simply provide the model for how data are to be analyzed.

The overwhelming weight of evidence, as evaluated by any scientific or even rational criteria, shows that this is simply not the case.

On this we disagree.

1. Joseph Smith could translate ancient languages, including Egyptian.

You are making some interesting and understandable assumptions, but your statement is only correct according to those assumptions, and there is contrary evidence.

2. Reformed Egyptian as described by Joseph Smith was a written language in ancient Mesoamerica. (The written languages of pre-Columbian America as preserved in codices murals and stone engravings can now be translated. None of these properly translated contemporary writings even come close to Joseph Smith’s “Reformed Egyptian” in terms of form, nor does their content comport in any way the Book of Mormon narrative.)

You seem to have missed my response to this. You have misrepresented both the question and the evidence. What can be read comes from after the Book of Mormon. San Bartolo showed us that certain assumptions were incorrect and that there other Maya scripts written on more perishable (and perished) media. There are indications of numerous scripts, with too few examples to even hint at a translation--simply the evidence that we know very little about the literary history of the area, particularly during Book of Mormon times.

4. The history, culture, language and artifacts of the pre-Columbian New World are described in the Book of Mormon.

That's odd. I find that that Mesoamerica supplies such a natural historical and cultural backdrop to the text that it explains otherwise anomalous texts.

5. The Pre-Columbian New World was populated by several small groups of individuals who arrived by transoceanic migrations from the Middle East.

Please note that this isn't the argument of the text, but rather an argument that has been traditionally imputed to the text. There is a difference, and an important one.

Exhaustive mitochondrial DNA analysis of the descendants of pre-Columbian New World populations shows that there was no contribution the pre-Columbian genome by transoceanic migration – none.

Correct. Are you sure that says anything about the Book of Mormon? There are geneticists who don't believe it does.

It shows instead that the New World was populated by human migration across by way of Beringia starting some 15000 to 20000 years ago.

Yes. And?

6. At least one of these Book of Mormon groups eventually grew to number in the millions, most of which were killed in one great battle--
(Population studies show conclusively that human population growth required to go from several dozen to several million in the time frame claimed was simply not possible.)

Please note that you are arguing a position I don't take. I agree that there were already lots of people around. Whatever you think this argument does, it doesn't say anything about the way I have argued Book of Mormon history. You might try to at least engage with the person you are discussing with rather than just toss out random things you have heard before.

Unless you can come up with some convincing evidence to support LDS truth claims as to provenance and veracity of the Book of Mormon (and/or the Book of Abraham), I am sure you can see why, in the real world at least, the Book of Mormon “text archeology” has no foundation, and should be dismissed out of hand, as it has been, and continues to be, by mainstream science.

You seem to assume that I haven't. I wonder how you would know that, since you clearly have no idea what I believe or how I have examined the evidence (let alone what evidence I have examined). Don't you think that some resemblance to the scientific method would suggest that you accumulate some data before coming to your conclusion?

[_Brant Gardner]

So you really claim to know, even after asserting (let's use that word to death) that no one know? That makes no sense.

Your assertions (that is funner the more I use it) are based on you knowing how it was done, or something fundamental about the process. You take this assertion (yes, again) and use it to explain the serious problems with the text. You assert (oooooooh, yeah) that horses, steel, and D-Isaiah are no problem. Based on what?

Your wit aside, I have a hypothesis that explains the data. As with any hypothesis, its validity depends upon its explanatory power. You are welcome to examine it.

[_Brant Gardner]

Looking back at the page, I do wonder what important point you think your next paragraph adds in the context of this discussion. It basically says (surprise) that Coe must have heard the story from the Saints, since (of course) he didn't see Smith translating.

Of course your are correct. One paragraph should be able to explain everything, no need to read more or actually understand what I was saying before you assume it must be wrong.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

So you really claim to know, even after asserting (let's use that word to death) that no one know? That makes no sense.

Your assertions (that is funner the more I use it) are based on you knowing how it was done, or something fundamental about the process. You take this assertion (yes, again) and use it to explain the serious problems with the text. You assert (oooooooh, yeah) that horses, steel, and D-Isaiah are no problem. Based on what?

Your wit aside, I have a hypothesis that explains the data. As with any hypothesis, its validity depends upon its explanatory power. You are welcome to examine it.

Does your "hypothesis" explain the accounts of multiple eyewitnesses that actually describe the charade?

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

BG,

If you would, name one (1) bit of evidence in favor of your assertion.

[_SteelHead]

1. No one knows how the translation works.
2. There are errors in the text.
3. Brandt knows how the translation works.

QED

4. Profit!!! (Prophet?)