DiscussMormonism.com

Runtu wrote:If we're going to discuss the evidence from the text, it's extremely problematic to discount what's actually in the text. Thus, horses and chariots mentioned in the context of travel are not actually used for conveyance.

I agree that it is problematic. It is also highly dependent upon one's theory of translation. Someone on the Internet suggested that no apologist ought to attempt to argue for the Book of Mormon without defining where they stand on how the Book of Mormon was translated. I really agree. If I were to suggest that it was divinely translated and somehow perfect, then and horse would have to be a horse and chariot would have been the best possible description.

Since I define the translation method differently, different questions come up. If I treat the text as a historical document in translation, I have to question everything, including vocabulary (which, by the way, is one of the reasons that I can't see Hebraisms as a viable evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon--that requires a literal translation for which I find little evidence).

Rather, the thesis you've adopted is that it is indeed historical, and I would imagine you adopted that thesis long before you started your investigations.

That is an important point to make, and clarify. Of course I began with the thesis that the text was historical. However, that doesn't mean that the opening hypothesis must dictate the results or that the data are shoehorned to fit the hypothesis. My introduction to much of these issues came when I started looking at the Quetzalcoatl=Christ hypothesis. I began that investigation assuming that it was correct. I found that the data simply didn't support it. I brought the type of assumption to the Book of Mormon text. If the data could not fit the text, I would have to abandon it, just as I had abandoned the Quetzalcoatl=Christ idea. I am still trying to get the believing LDS audience to stop using that example, but it isn't happening very quickly.

I genuinely wish you well in making a case. I don't think it's been made, at least not without doing some serious violence to the text.

Thank you. The first thing out will be on the translation (including a discussion of how seer stones work and how you translate with seer stones--if I am going to stick my neck out, I may as well stick it WAY out). The biggest problem with that book is that in order to discuss the translation at all, one must accept that it is a translation. There was no way to get that argument out at the same time, so the only thing I could do was suggest that it had to be taken as a given for the purposes of that discussion. I do intend to get on to that next task.

Discussing these things on message boards is always unsatisfying, because we never really get into good evidence or presentations of the arguments. The format just doesn't lend itself to that.

Runtu wrote:

Brant Gardner wrote:Please let me know the nature of the connection. They are mentioned at the same time. The "horse" never does anything with or to the chariot that can be discerned from the text.

This is what I mean by doing violence to the text.

Good to have a reference point. Is it possible that there is a word in a translation that does not adequately represent the underlying language? You have experience with another language, I'm sure you know that it happens all of the time. In any document where I have to deal with a text in translation, it is always a question of what the specific vocabulary item might have been translating. I am particularly sensitive to this because I have read so many Spanish descriptions of native practices. Because Central Mexico does have a few texts in Nahuatl, there are enough chances to see the alterations going on that one can get the feel for it.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, we are simply given the text and have to decide how to deal with it. Is a horse a horse? If I have only the text to work with, I go to the text to see if the horse acts like a horse. Certainly in the Bible references it is much more clear. We have people riding horses and particularly horse and chariots in battle contexts. Those are pretty confirming about what they mean. I agree that I might not even ask that question if there had been horses all over the New World, but lacking that, it is a question that should be asked (and to my mind a much more logical discussion that assuming that Pleistocene "horses" survived).

There is actually some work suggesting that there may be horse bones that C-14 date to prior to the Conquest. Because that will be extremely controversial, the evidence will have to be pretty strong before publication. Still, I have sources that tell me to expect it. Even with that, however, I wouldn't change my opinion of the nature of "horse" in the Book of Mormon. The horse is a non-factor. I does not modify Nephite culture in any way that horses are known to have altered human cultures. With the precedent for other texts in translation, this really seems like the most economic explanation.

Brant Gardner wrote:Perhaps you are not familiar with the phenomenon. Look up the meaning of hippopotamus. When the Mexica saw horses, they used the word for "deer" to describe them--and they certainly knew what a deer was and that a horse wasn't one. Still, they used that word.

Yes, I'm familiar with that example.

Of course, this requires that I interpret the translation method as less than divinely dictated--which I do and for which I will be presenting evidence.

You're on the high road to heresy. :)

Please let me know the nature of the connection. They are mentioned at the same time. The "horse" never does anything with or to the chariot that can be discerned from the text.
...
There is nothing in the text that tells me the relationship between the two. A "horse" is never ridden. A "horse" never pulls anything (not even the chariot).
...
the distinct absence of any horse-like action or function is suggestive.
...
There is nothing that suggests anything about what a "chariot" was.

So you deny that Lamoni intended to use his "horses and his chariots" in some manner to facilitate his going with Ammon "down to the land of Middoni"? Do you also assert that Lamoni intended for his horses to perform some function entirely independent and unrelated to whatever function his chariots were about to perform?

Chariots nor horses ever play in any description of warfare.

3 Nephi 21:14 sounds like a threat of warfare to me.

The problem with Book of Mormon "horses" is that we may suspect a translation error, but the text doesn't help us nearly as much as the Bible does for "candle."

May we freely appeal to "translation error" whenever the data don't fit our theory? Shouldn't we have a well-accepted translation theory that holds water before we start pointing out translation errors?

Brant Gardner wrote:

Joey wrote:Joey, please read even more carefully. I said that Coe was unaware of more recent LDS scholarship on the Book of Mormon.

What recent LDS scholarship do you believe would convince Coe to change his position? Has it convinced any other non-LDS scholars or academic institution to accept the historicity claim in the Book of Mormon?? Have any even shown an interest in it yet? (I will assume you must be referring to LDS scholarship published since he gave his interview.)

Shouldn't we have a well-accepted translation theory that holds water before we start pointing out translation errors?

We can't, since we don't have the original. However, Jockers' new study should give us a better handle on what the original probably looked like.

As for horses, I have already pointed out, and visually for a number of weeks, that a llama will do just as well. I really don't think that it is a point worth belaboring. And, yes,

So you deny that Lamoni intended to use his "horses and his chariots" in some manner to facilitate his going with Ammon "down to the land of Middoni"?

horses and chariots were inextricably linked.


The point remains, despite these coincidences, the Book of Mormon is an imaginative product of the early nineteenth century.

Good people:

It seems that this thread is heading into an endless loop. I don't see anything moving forward. Thank you all for your participation.

Brant Gardner wrote:Good people:

It seems that this thread is heading into an endless loop. I don't see anything moving forward. Thank you all for your participation.

What would constitute "moving forward"?

Brant Gardner wrote:Good people:

It seems that this thread is heading into an endless loop. I don't see anything moving forward. Thank you all for your participation.

It really isn't the thread, it is the level of LDS "scholarship" in defending the Book of Mormon historicity. My original topic thread was titled "...Intellect in Isolation". Brant has proved to be a great asset for the church in providing answers and hope for the faithful through, as can be best described as, "fireside scholarship". When not faced with open, honest and perhaps difficult questions and reasoning - it moves forward nicely since there is no resistance. But those more knowledgable in mesoamerican history, as I have demonstrated above, continue to reject and ignore this supposed "scholarship". That is, with any due respect, the reason why these LDS arguments continue in this "Provo Loop". But, I think it does have it's purpose to support the faith of members.

Brant Gardner wrote:Good people:

It seems that this thread is heading into an endless loop. I don't see anything moving forward. Thank you all for your participation.

I thought it was just getting interesting. I think you and other apologists are nice people. I just wish you guys wouldn't run away when things get tough. I respect what you are trying to do, but I see a lot of problems with your list, some of which has already been brought up. I think mortal man has got you in a tight place with the horse and chariot, and I remember going over this with you before. Runtu is correct about doing violence to the text. I agree with you that we all have to interpret the data. I think your first problem is trying to show a loose translation, which is vital in order to reinterpret much of the Book of Mormon. We also have to interpret the data coming from scholars doing work on the Maya. I still think with the loose translation it is to easy to make the connections you want without the proper controls. You need to reject so much of the text and evidence to do this. Looking at your list I think I could do the same with almost many other groups from the past.

Anyways I hope things go well for you.

Themis wrote: I just wish you guys wouldn't run away when things get tough.

I apologize if you have that impression. For example, the issue of the translation of horse and chariot is a recent topic. I have explained my take on this multiple times. I don't think that repeating myself will add anything to the discussion.

I think your first problem is trying to show a loose translation, which is vital in order to reinterpret much of the Book of Mormon.

Yet another example of where we are going in circles. You are asserting that I use a loose translation because it fits the way I want to interpret the Book of Mormon. I have said before that such an assertion incorrectly represents the way I am approaching the text. Now I have said it again. If I continued to participate in this thread, I would be saying it again.

So, I continue to thank all and apologize again if it seems I am running away.