Book of Mormon...a common thread?

[_moksha]

* According to other accounts, Smith didn't even have the plates in the house, and sat with his head face down in a hat, looking at a small stone on which the original text of the plates would appear, with English underneath, or else only English, either one word at a time or several words at once (accounts differ), and he would read the English to a scribe

None of these describe a process of translation. All of them describe a process of Smith reading English and dictating the English to a scribe.

No need to get all hung up about the plates. The ones in the cupboard were sufficient. What if the Hat contained the "Crib Notes of Prophecy"? Would that make any difference in the long run? The Book of Mormon would still be Sacred Allegory.

[_mentalgymnast]

Hmmm so would it be more accurate to say the Holy Ghost translated the plates, or the seer stone translated the plates into English and Joseph Smith read the translation to his scribe?

MG: yes, that's a possibility. Although there could have been other beings/individuals from the spiritual realm that helped in the process rather than relying solely on one spiritual presence/being. Sounds weird, right? You've heard of Royal Skousen I assume. Here's something he said:

I began to see considerable evidence for the traditional interpretation that witnesses of the translation process claimed: the text was given word for word; Book of Mormon names were frequently spelled out the first time they occurred in the text; and during dictation there was no rewriting of the text except to correct errors in taking down the dictation. Joseph Smith was literally reading off an already composed English-language text. The evidence in the manuscripts and in the language of the text itself supports the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon was a precisely determined text. I do not consider this conclusion apologetic, but instead as one demanded by the evidence.

The opposing viewpoint, that Joseph Smith got ideas and he translated them into his own English, cannot be supported by the manuscript and textual evidence. The only substantial argument for this alternative view has been the nonstandard nature of the text, with its implication that God would never speak ungrammatical English, so the nonstandard usage must be the result of Joseph Smith putting the ideas he received into his own language. Yet with the recent finding that the original vocabulary of the text appears to be dated from the 1500s and 1600s (not the 1800s), we now need to consider the possibility that the ungrammaticality of the original text may also date from that earlier period of time, not necessarily from Joseph’s own time and place. Joseph Smith is not the author of the Book of Mormon, nor is he actually the translator. Instead, he was the revelator — through him the Lord revealed the English-language text (and by means of the interpreters and the seer stone). Such a view is consistent, I believe, with Joseph’s use elsewhere of the verb translate to mean ‘transmit’ and the noun translation to mean ‘transmission’ (as in the eighth Article of Faith).

http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php?p=1439

In the link read number 4. "What are some of the major findings of this project?" skip down to letter i.

The Book of Mormon very well could have been more of a collaborative project than we might think. Why are we constrained to think that it was only Joseph and Oliver (and other scribes) that were involved in the project?

And again, the fact that the plates were not always accessible isn't a critical issue as far as I can see.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

The truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is a separate issue from whether or not the church is the "one true church" with the restored priesthood authority. Joseph Smith' role in translating the Book of Mormon is a separate issue from his later roles, such as establishing the church. I have frequently pointed out the serious nature of this alteration in "revelation":

Original 1833 Book of Commandments

BC 4:2, p. 10 — and he has a gift to translate the book [of Mormon], and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift.

Altered to:

D&C 5:4 — And you have a gift to translate the plates; [and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you;] and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift [until my purpose is fulfilled in this;] for I will grant unto you no other gift [until it is finished].

As a 19 year old investigator, I instinctively understood that these were two distinct issues. Apparently the church recognizes this as well when it encourages investigators to not only pray about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon but to pray about Joseph Smith as a true prophet. Many of you know my history in that, as an investigator, I received a strong "yes" to my prayer about the Book of Mormon, but never could get a "yes" answer to Joseph Smith being a prophet in general, or the church being the "one true church", or the church having the real priesthood authority of JC.

Not only is it logical to separate the two issues, but obviously whoever wrote the D&C separated the two issues, hence, the necessary alteration. Saying Joseph Smith would have no other gift other than to translate the Book of Mormon negates later claims, including the priesthood restoration and restoring the "true" church. That wasn't his mission. His mission was to translate the Book of Mormon, according to the original "revelation".

MG: high seven. I've heard you say this before. You've got a lot riding on your personal interpretation/logic don't you? As one visits a site such as:

http://www.saintswithouthalos.com/s/d&c_5.phtml

it is obvious that there have been many "changes" to purported revelations received by Joseph Smith. I suppose it all comes back to just what revelation is and what it entails from one condition/circumstance to another. If revelation is dynamic and fluid then "changes" don't create a problem as far as I can see. Seems like it would make perfect sense.

Unless, of course, we get hung up on how/why God would give less than complete/perfect revelation(s)...or why can't/couldn't he get it right the first time? But if one looks at revelation as being adapted to the circumstances of people and their needs, wants, abilities, agency, pride, humility, etc., then it's possible to get through this dilemma.

MG -

I visited the site you linked. The problem that I see is that, unless I Overlooked it, most of the site is dedicated to the types of proof that people on MAD are so fond of - the connections with the Old World - the Hebrew connections. The reason I find all of that uninteresting and nonpersuasive is because, from what I've read, it would be possible for a nineteenth century person to make these connections if they had certain background information.

MG: well sure...if it was available within the timeframe it would have had to been for Joseph to access it, digest it, and then fit it all together into a tiny little narrative <G>. As you know, that's debatable.

To me, the historical truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is entirely dependent on finding a reasonable location for its events in the New World. And that happens to be the most difficult problem facing the historicity of the Book of Mormon. The current "fad" is, of course, Mesaomerica - but the cruel reality is that no empire as described in the Book of Mormon, anachronisms aside, existed in Mesoamerica at that time period. Brant Gardner attempts to deal with this problem by interpreting the Book of Mormon in a strained manner.

I analyzed this problem in detail in this essay:

http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/wiki/ind ... _and_Power

MG: I read your essay...well most of it anyway...it's long. You make some interesting points. Nice work. I'm not a meso-american expert by any stretch. You have put a great deal of time into this specific area of interest. But you are also an amateur when it comes down to it.

It becomes a numbers match up game, doesn't it? Also whether one template can fit over the top of another without too many anomalies.

I would be interested in seeing a response from apologists to specific points made in your essay? Is it out there?

New world evidences for the Book of Mormon have always been an issue for me along the way also. Plenty to discuss in that arena, that's for sure.

Regards,
MG

[_truth dancer]

Hi MG.. my friend... :-)

You responded to Beastie...

But you are also an amateur when it comes down to it.

You are sounding like Brant! :-( Anyone who doesn't have 27 PhDs can't discuss the issue cause they don't know what they are talking about! Brant doesn't have a PhD either!

Beastie may be an amature but I don't think there is anyone in the church who is more knowledgeable about the topic than she and that includes Brant.

But the point is... Beastie uses EXPERTS quotes... she uses knowledge from respected experts in the field. If anyone wants to debate her essay they are in truth debating the experts.

I would challenge anyone to find where Beastie, in her essays, has just come up her own little ideas based on some sort of nonsense.

I just get really tired of people dismissing facts because they do not hear it first hand from the respected experts of the world.... second hand doesn't seem to be good enough when it comes to the Book of Mormon. :-(

So... I would respectfully ask anyone who wants to debate the issue to debate the facts rather than criticize Beastie because she doesn't hold enough advanced degrees in Mesoamerican History.

:-)



~dancer~

[_Fortigurn]

You've heard of Royal Skousen I assume. Here's something he said:

I began to see considerable evidence for the traditional interpretation that witnesses of the translation process claimed: the text was given word for word; Book of Mormon names were frequently spelled out the first time they occurred in the text; and during dictation there was no rewriting of the text except to correct errors in taking down the dictation. Joseph Smith was literally reading off an already composed English-language text. The evidence in the manuscripts and in the language of the text itself supports the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon was a precisely determined text. I do not consider this conclusion apologetic, but instead as one demanded by the evidence.

Why not just come out and say it - he plagiarized it from an existing English text, such as Spalding's? I think some people want to see you in the 'Spalding/Rigdon' thread.

The opposing viewpoint, that Joseph Smith got ideas and he translated them into his own English, cannot be supported by the manuscript and textual evidence.

I don't know anyone who suggests that 'Joseph Smith got ideas and he translated them into his own English'. What language would he be translating them from?

The only substantial argument for this alternative view has been the nonstandard nature of the text, with its implication that God would never speak ungrammatical English, so the nonstandard usage must be the result of Joseph Smith putting the ideas he received into his own language. Yet with the recent finding that the original vocabulary of the text appears to be dated from the 1500s and 1600s (not the 1800s), we now need to consider the possibility that the ungrammaticality of the original text may also date from that earlier period of time, not necessarily from Joseph’s own time and place.

Er, yes, this is exactly what we would expect from a book which includes substantial slabs of the KJV Bible - KJV spelling, vocabulary and grammar. If some of it was written in the 19th century, we should also expect to see 19th century spelling, vocabulary and grammar. We do. So it's clearly a combination of the two sources.

Joseph Smith is not the author of the Book of Mormon, nor is he actually the translator. Instead, he was the revelator — through him the Lord revealed the English-language text (and by means of the interpreters and the seer stone). Such a view is consistent, I believe, with Joseph’s use elsewhere of the verb translate to mean ‘transmit’ and the noun translation to mean ‘transmission’ (as in the eighth Article of Faith).

He certainly wasn't the translator (despite the fact that the LDS church claims he was), but according to the eye witnesses he wasn't the revelator either. According to the eye witnesses, God was the revelator, the plates were utterly irrelevant to the process, and Smith was the reader of an English version of text which was revealed to him by God.

The Book of Mormon very well could have been more of a collaborative project than we might think. Why are we constrained to think that it was only Joseph and Oliver (and other scribes) that were involved in the project?

Well said. Please see the 'Spalding/Rigdon' thread.

And again, the fact that the plates were not always accessible isn't a critical issue as far as I can see.

Sure it is. It's eye witness evidence against the idea that text from the plates was translated in order to write the Book of Mormon.

[_beastie]

MG: high seven. I've heard you say this before. You've got a lot riding on your personal interpretation/logic don't you? As one visits a site such as:

http://www.saintswithouthalos.com/s/d&c_5.phtml

it is obvious that there have been many "changes" to purported revelations received by Joseph Smith. I suppose it all comes back to just what revelation is and what it entails from one condition/circumstance to another. If revelation is dynamic and fluid then "changes" don't create a problem as far as I can see. Seems like it would make perfect sense.

Unless, of course, we get hung up on how/why God would give less than complete/perfect revelation(s)...or why can't/couldn't he get it right the first time? But if one looks at revelation as being adapted to the circumstances of people and their needs, wants, abilities, agency, pride, humility, etc., then it's possible to get through this dilemma.

Yes, I’ve visited that site as well.

I’m not sure what you mean by “you have a lot riding on your personal interpretation/logic”. If you think I lost faith in the church simply due to this changed revelation, you’re wrong. I can’t even remember if I knew about it before losing faith – I think I didn’t know about it until I read some of the Tanner’s work, which I didn’t read until after I was already out of the church.

Of course my loss of faith was directly related to the failure of personal revelation. Before losing faith, when I was just doubting and wavering, I pleaded with God, over and over, to let me know the church was true, that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. Either there was no God to answer that prayer, or God chose not to for some reason.

If that’s not what you are implying, I have no idea what you mean. I have no more riding on my personal interpretations than any other human being.

I understand the concept of revelation being adapted to the needs of people, but to attempt to apply that logic to this specific example strains credulity.

MG: well sure...if it was available within the timeframe it would have had to been for Joseph to access it, digest it, and then fit it all together into a tiny little narrative <G>. As you know, that's debatable.

Please keep in mind that Joseph Smith had at least four years to put together the Book of Mormon. And that doesn’t factor in the real possibility that at least parts of it may have been authored by other individuals, who also may have taken years to put it together.

MG: I read your essay...well most of it anyway...it's long. You make some interesting points. Nice work. I'm not a meso-american expert by any stretch. You have put a great deal of time into this specific area of interest. But you are also an amateur when it comes down to it.

It becomes a numbers match up game, doesn't it? Also whether one template can fit over the top of another without too many anomalies.

I would be interested in seeing a response from apologists to specific points made in your essay? Is it out there?

New world evidences for the Book of Mormon have always been an issue for me along the way also. Plenty to discuss in that arena, that's for sure.

First, TD already addressed the point I intended to make (thanks, TD). I am not an expert, which is exactly why the BULK of my essays consist of direct citations from people who ARE experts.

Brant has addressed this point briefly, mainly by stating that I misinterpret the Book of Mormon. He doesn’t have problems with my grasp of Mesoamerican history, but insists that I misread certain details such as whether or not Zarahemla politically controlled other polities (although on his website he concedes the point, he argued against the same point on FAIR), or whether or not the Book of Mormon describes a “standing army”. He didn’t stick around long enough for either conversation to really defend his points.

[_harmony]

Of course my loss of faith was directly related to the failure of personal revelation. Before losing faith, when I was just doubting and wavering, I pleaded with God, over and over, to let me know the church was true, that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. Either there was no God to answer that prayer, or God chose not to for some reason.

Or the answer was "no".

[_Runtu]

I'm still not sure why it's dogmatic to admit to myself that I have indeed reached some conclusions.

MG: a man by the name of Rajesh Setty said this: "Reaching conclusions without the right set of data and criteria is both easy and stupid."

I wouldn't call 40 years of study and prayer an "easy and stupid" process. We can disagree without being insulting, you know.

We all are susceptible of doing this. How can one be sure that the right set of data, in its completeness/entirety, is being accessed? Being dogmatic is having reached conclusions that one believes are infallible. Have you done so in some instances?

I've already answered this. I think it's still remotely possible that the Book of Mormon is true, though highly unlikely. Is that dogmatic?

Is this wise?

Regards,
MG

Is it wise to refuse to reach conclusions because a believer tells you they're the wrong conclusions?

[_Analytics]

It seems to me that if the Book of Mormon was true (true meaning that it was an accurate translation of an authentic ancient document, and that further the story accurately describes actual historical events), that would seem to indicate that the church was false.

Why do I say that? Recall the legend of the 17 Points of the True Church. Say a group of sincere, intelligent, objective people decided to sit down with the Book of Mormon and describe what the true “Book of Mormon Church” would look like, based solely on what the Book of Mormon says. What would the list look like, and would it describe the LDS Church?

It would have several hits: it would be Jesus-centered. It wouldn’t baptize children under eight. It would have the correct sacrament prayer.

But it would have several important misses. The Book of Mormon teaches fire, hell, and brimstone. Mormonism doesn’t. The Book of Mormon has a religion that isn’t dependent on the formal existence of a church with strict authority (e.g. the church per se didn’t exist until Alma baptized himself and started it hundreds of years into the story). The Mormon Church teaches that you should be completely obedient, loyal, and dedicated to the Church itself, and that the Church is exempt from apostasy. These concepts are foreign to the Book of Mormon.

The main use of the Book of Mormon by the church is to try to prove the truthfulness of the church (“If the Book of Mormon is true, Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God… If this book is true, Gordon B. Hinckley is a prophet… If the Book of Mormon is true, the Church is true…”) But the cover plate of the book claims that its purpose is simply to convince the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD.

It seems to me that Martin Harris, wandering around independently preaching the Book of Mormon sans membership in any given church, is a good example of somebody consistently living the actual message of the Book of Mormon.

[_mentalgymnast]

I think some people want to see you in the 'Spalding/Rigdon' thread.

MG: wow, that thread has been going on for a while. I want to catch up on what's going on there. Thanks for the reference. I haven't been there to look at it except back when it first started. I've mentioned before that a number of years ago when I was doing a lot more "reading" than I do now, the Spalding Theory was quite troublesome to me. I'm interested in reading the thread. Thanks.

The rest of your thread I don't have any major quibbles with. I've thought along the same lines myself. When Skousen first mentioned the 15th-16th century connection I was asking myself, huh? He kind of beat around the bush when someone on Times and Seasons wanted him to delve into this area a bit more. Nothing was resolved.

Regards,
MG