Book of Mormon Transliteration

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Book of Mormon Transliteration

Post by _Kishkumen »

Thinking on that, I've been puzzling over what verse or verses would come to exemplify that wisdom? I don't see the Moroni's Promise or "I will go and do" jumping to the head of the line among a hypothetical group of future wisdom seekers finding the divine in the Book of Mormon. But perhaps you could enlighten me on which candidates you think are sleeping giants of wisdom hidden in the text?


If there were an argument to be made against memic evolution as a worthwhile concept this might be it. I don’t know how many of us readily think of passages of the Koran or the Tibetan Book of the Dead such that we would casually assign these texts to the repository of world wisdom, and that would have little merit as a method of assigning importance to these texts.

This sounds to me like an implicitly culturally specific and narrow idea of wisdom, presumed to be universal but really not in the least. Of course one would expect a privileged, educated Western white guy to mention eastern and Stoic sages. (I generally go there too, as a fellow, privileged white guy.) Maybe not so much Native American myths, or Egyptian proverbs.

What does it mean for an ex-Mormon to say that the Book of Mormon has no real wisdom in it? Not much.

I find it interesting how honor refers to “I will go and do,” reflexively pulling out the least interesting and least noteworthy part of the passage—leaving aside the question of whether it is world-class wisdom.

What is at least marginally more interesting is what follows: “for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.”

Mormons find wisdom in this. We might say it is stylistically clunky or unoriginal, but wisdom sayings are not primarily valued for their novelty. The idea is probably much less dated and offensive than a lot of what one finds in Proverbs. It could be that, putting together the idea, its language, and its narrative context, this story is very powerful and useful to the community that values this text.

So, is it a mistake that many, many Mormons find it memorable and quote portions of it regularly in their community?

I suppose if we are each discussing what is personally enriching, or we are participating in the received, fashionable elite culture of our times, then we folk here on MDB probably will not immediately quote Egyptian proverbs, coyote stories, or Nephi.

What measure is that of their value, use, or wisdom?
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Book of Mormon Transliteration

Post by _Themis »

mentalgymnast wrote:
If you haven't noticed, I'm suggesting that the actual process and the system(s) involved seems to be a bit (understatement) more complex than putting his head in a hat and simply reading words magically put there by whomever.


How does Joseph reading words magically put there by whomever not be able to produce a complex narrative? How would it not be the most efficient way to produce a complex narrative in a short period of time. You do realize reading off someone else's work is way faster then helping to create some of it.

Would it faster to read off the Lord of the rings then to create the narrative?
42
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Book of Mormon Transliteration

Post by _Gadianton »

MG wrote:For the sake of argument, let's say that the chiasmus found in the Book of Mormon is complex.

How did it get there? Again, per my last post, if Joseph is moving along at a fairly rapid pace in the 'translation' and reading off of a rock...how did it end up in the Book of Mormon? It's not the Dr. Seuss jingles we're talking about.


In other words, assume a tight translation, which isn't really a translation at all, and the chiasmus must be a feature of the text he's reading in English that was translated by a higher power first, or by the mechanics of his i-rock. But then what about the "textual layers" of Brandt Gardner and the "expansions" of Blake Ostler? Where does "conceptual mapping" by borrowing common phrasing from the Bible fit in when Joseph Smith is reading English off a rock at a rapid pace?

You're trying to convince me of complex Chiasmus at the same time you're trying to convince me of Brandt Gardner and Blake Ostler who both admit in the "expansion" model, that Chiasmus aren't clearly evidence of Hebrew because they could be interjected by the common phrasing of the Bible itself as you yourself point out, or from elsewhere, you know, as part of the "expansion"?

Blake Ostler wrote:Chiasmus can also be found in somenineteenth-century works, including the Doctrine and Covenants and Book ofAbraham (D&C 88:34-38; 98:18-38; 132:19-26; Abr. 3:16-19). Thus,the assumption that chiasmus is an exclusively ancient poetic device appears tobe false. Further, many Book of Mormon chiastic passages presuppose a doc-trine of Christ developed beyond anything found in the Old Testament(Mosiah 3:18-19; 5:10-12; 2 Ne. 25:2-27; Alma 36; 41:13-15)
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: Book of Mormon Transliteration

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Themis wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:
If you haven't noticed, I'm suggesting that the actual process and the system(s) involved seems to be a bit (understatement) more complex than putting his head in a hat and simply reading words magically put there by whomever.


Themis earlier:
If Joseph, as the witnesses tell us, was seeing the words on his rock/seer-stone how would he not be able to read off a coherent, cohesive and complex narrative prepared potentially over centuries by the power of God? Given the time span you are looking at this would be the only way he could make such a narrative.

Themis most recently:
How does Joseph reading words magically put there by whomever not be able to produce a complex narrative? How would it not be the most efficient way to produce a complex narrative in a short period of time. You do realize reading off someone else's work is way faster then helping to create some of it.

Would it faster to read off the Lord of the rings then to create the narrative?


I'm not quite sure where you're headed here. What I think I'm hearing you say is that it would be more efficient to go simple rather than complex. Go the crib notes route? That God should have His words on the stone and Joseph simply reads them aloud. The problem here is that isn't what the evidence...the text...suggests.

Sorry I'm not quite getting it...or maybe I did?

Regards,
MG
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: Book of Mormon Transliteration

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Gadianton wrote:
In other words, assume a tight translation...


That's not what I'm assuming...strictly...if you go back and read my posts.

If I'm remembering correctly, a tight translation in the traditional meaning/sense doesn't allow for a clean transition from the original languages (Hebriaistic Chiasmus/Reformed Egyptian) into Joseph's vernacular of the day.

There are problems and/or unanswered questions with both tight and loose translation. That's why I'm suggesting that there is something more to it than meets the eye. A hybrid of some type. Something more along the line of what I've already tried to describe in this thread...although I realize it is in no way fleshed out and may not be bullet proof. In fact, since I'm sort of brainstorming on this thread and knowing my brain power and output often doesn't amount to much, I'm sure that there are some wide gaping holes.

I'm just throwing it out there to chew on.

So there. :smile:

Regards,
MG
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Book of Mormon Transliteration

Post by _Themis »

mentalgymnast wrote:
I'm not quite sure where you're headed here. What I think I'm hearing you say is that it would be more efficient to go simple rather than complex. Go the crib notes route? That God should have His words on the stone and Joseph simply reads them aloud. The problem here is that isn't what the evidence...the text...suggests.

Sorry I'm not quite getting it...or maybe I did?

Regards,
MG


No. What I am saying is if you want Joseph to come up with a complex narrative in a short time, reading words off a rock from someone God called to create a complex narrative would be the only way for Joseph to have the text in a short time. Having him do something else would take way too long. The text you suggest is complex and cohesive, but SO WHAT? Reading words off a rock does not somehow make a text simple. If I read off the Lord of the rings and have someone copy down what I say, it wont make the story less complex, which is what you seem to be saying. You do get that Joseph reading words he see does nothing to make any prepared narrative more or less complex.
42
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: Book of Mormon Transliteration

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Themis wrote:What I am saying is if you want Joseph to come up with a complex narrative in a short time, reading words off a rock from someone God called to create a complex narrative would be the only way for Joseph to have the text in a short time.


Although then you have the inherent problem of Joseph Smith's world in the Book of Mormon. Unless the 'ghost committee' is also composed of country hicks. :wink: I do see that speed of translation seems to be handicapped by involving too much complexity within a short amount of time. But I'd take a gander at saying God's processing power and delivery of information filtered through Joseph's mind using transliteration of concepts (pictures/visualization) through an organized sequence of mapping using Joseph's already fertile Biblical brain mapping (stories, teachings, prophecies, etc. from the Holy Bible) would out do the transmission of information from source to end through cellular technology. The human brain functions at a much higher processing speed.

As I said earlier, I think we may be discounting the underlying complexity of the translation process. We may find that it's a bit easier to just say, "by the gift and power of God". But that sounds sort of lame, doesn't it? :wink:

BY saying...and admitting to the fact...that God is great, I think we might allow for a bit more creativity in the whole translation process than we might otherwise. And we have to look at the book as it is and ask questions in regards to the 'problems' we see and how they might not be problems at all if we were/are able to look through a different lens.

But I'm not sure we can even to that. We stumble along the way. I suppose that's where a bit of faith comes in.

I think I've reached my interest limit on this thread for now. I'd like to read what other are saying, etc.

I may have derailed things a bit...so I'll wander off into the sunset. :smile:

Regards,
MG
_canpakes
_Emeritus
Posts: 8541
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:54 am

Re: Book of Mormon Transliteration

Post by _canpakes »

mentalgymnast wrote:
I have a question wrote:I’m wondering how a believing member can simultaneously think “conceptual mapping” (whatever that term becomes to mean) and “Transliteration” (in the unique manner one individual has decided it can mean) fits with the methodology the Church now teaches as the way the Book of Mormon was “translated” (meaning the Mormon definition of translation rather than the commonly used meaning) I.e. By God beaming individual words onto a rock that Joseph read out to a scribe, who copied them down verbatim.

How does one make those three things (conceptual mapping, transliteration and what the Church teaches) into a coherent belief about where the Book of Mormon comes from?


It sounds like you may have some reading to do.

Here is a good place to start. Deseret News. A lot of Book of Mormon translation stuff. Enough to whet your appetite I'd hope. And there is a lot more out there.

https://www.deseretnews.com/search/google?q=michael+ash

In the search field type in: Michael Ash Translation of the Book of Mormon

... and ...

If you haven't noticed, I'm suggesting that the actual process and the system(s) involved seems to be a bit (understatement) more complex than putting his head in a hat and simply reading words magically put there by whomever.


MG, what is necessitating a move away from what the Church taught about 'translation' for nearly two centuries, and towards more esoteric and arguably unnecessarily complicated theories such as those proposed by Ash, Skousen and others?
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Book of Mormon Transliteration

Post by _Gadianton »

MG wrote:That's not what I'm assuming...strictly...if you go back and read my posts.


Good Lord, you are a frustrating student. You're assuming a variety of contradictory things if we are to go back and read every post. In the sentence you wrote, that I responded to, you assumed a tight translation.

This is what you wrote:

MG wrote:How did it get there? Again, per my last post, if Joseph is moving along at a fairly rapid pace in the 'translation' and reading off of a rock.


What is he reading off of a rock, MG?

LDS.org wrote:pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument


MG wrote:If I'm remembering correctly, a tight translation in the traditional meaning/sense doesn't allow for a clean transition from the original languages (Hebriaistic Chiasmus/Reformed Egyptian) into Joseph's vernacular of the day.


THEN WHY DID YOU TELL ME HE'S "READING" OFF OF A ROCK? IF HE'S READING ENGLISH WORDS OFF OF A damned ROCK, THEN HOW ON EARTH WOULD JOSEPH'S "VERNACULAR" GET INTO THE THE Book of Mormon?
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: Book of Mormon Transliteration

Post by _mentalgymnast »

canpakes wrote:MG, what is necessitating a move away from what the Church taught about 'translation' for nearly two centuries, and towards more esoteric and arguably unnecessarily complicated theories such as those proposed by Ash, Skousen and others?


Real quick. It's getting late. Go back as far as B.H. Roberts. He was one of the first to see that there were potentially problems with the traditional story line of translation. It's been 'talked up' for a long time.

Regards,
MG
Post Reply