DiscussMormonism.com

mentalgymnast wrote:

Kishkumen wrote:I don't understand why anyone would argue that the Book of Mormon is ancient or even say that they are open to the possibility that it is. It isn't at all ancient in the sense of "composed in antiquity."

I'm of the opinion that the Book of Mormon was composed in antiquity but not translated in antiquity. Duh. As a result of this rather obvious fact I see the Book of Mormon as being a modern translation or more aptly put, a transliteration. But not transliteration in the traditional meaning of the word. Instead of grapheme to grapheme or "letters of the source script to letters pronounced similarly in the target script" resulting in "conversion of a text from one script to another"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transliteration

I see it as a transliteration resulting in the conversion of one historical period to another using conceptual 'mapping(s)' during the translation process. This is possibly one reason that the actual plates weren't always being accessed during the translation. The characters on the plates didn't lend themselves towards a conceptual transliteration.

Kishkumen wrote:It is true that I do not know for an absolute certainty that no part of the Book of Mormon that is not cribbed from the Bible was composed in antiquity.

Conceptual mapping would also lend itself to commonalities with the Bible phraseology. Blake Ostler's 'expansion on an ancient text' would fit in nicely with this, in my opinion.

Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast wrote:I'm of the opinion that the Book of Mormon was composed in antiquity but not translated in antiquity. Duh. As a result of this rather obvious fact I see the Book of Mormon as being a modern translation or more aptly put, a transliteration. But not transliteration in the traditional meaning of the word. Instead of grapheme to grapheme or "letters of the source script to letters pronounced similarly in the target script" resulting in "conversion of a text from one script to another"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transliteration

I see it as a transliteration resulting in the conversion of one historical period to another using conceptual 'mapping(s)' during the translation process. This is possibly one reason that the actual plates weren't always being accessed during the translation. The characters on the plates didn't lend themselves towards a conceptual transliteration.

Kishkumen wrote:Where are you getting this stuff?

mentalgymnast wrote:As a result of thinking about the translation of the Book of Mormon. I have this thing about trying to get at the meat of a matter. Sometimes that takes a bit of circuitous analysis/brainstorming.

Kishkumen wrote:Your use of the term transliteration is either idiosyncratic, highly specialized, or just plain wrong.

mentalgymnast wrote:It is unique to me as far as I know. So I'd go idiosyncratic. I'm pretty sure I didn't read it in some book somewhere.

Conceptual mapping would also lend itself to commonalities with the Bible phraseology. Blake Ostler's 'expansion on an ancient text' would fit in nicely with this, in my opinion.

Kishkumen wrote:Epicycles. Once you see that the many 19th century elements of the text point to 19th century composition, you no longer need the metaphorical epicycles.

mentalgymnast wrote:19th century composition is taken as a necessary component...taken for granted...in transliteration that results in the conversion of one historical period to another using conceptual mapping rather than going the route of grapheme to grapheme or symbol to symbol. When Joseph saw the words on the rock (assuming that he did) do we really know how those words got there? I suggest that a conceptual framework of translation with tight control...to a point...is not an unreasonable way to view the process.

I mean, think about it, Brant Gardner goes 'loose translation' and Royal Skousen and others go 'hard translation'. What about a middle way that involves both? Yes, it gets rather complex as one might get into the nitty-gritty...but still, it's a possibility to consider. There's just too much there in the Book of Mormon to simply toss it as being a fraud/fabrication.

My opinion anyway.

Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast wrote:There's just too much there in the Book of Mormon to simply toss it as being a fraud/fabrication.

honorentheos wrote:It's an odd thing to claim given the effort required to scape out the slightest bit of evidence one can tentatively associate with an ancient culture while it's saturated with 19th century views on practically every topic imaginable.

MG wrote:That the Book of Mormon would speak to 'our generation' using language that we can 'liken unto ourselves' would make sense, wouldn't it?

honorentheos wrote:Frankly, I think other than familiarity and the appeal of certain biblical language there isn't much to recommend it regardless of it's origin. That is appears to be a clear fraud is just closing the lid on the debate not the sum total of it.

MG wrote:
Honor, there are some pretty smart folks that would take issue with you succinct conclusion. The translation/transliteration process that I've described seems to mandate...or at least allow for...a significant amount of 19th century and whatever else we find in the Book of Mormon, including what appear to be anachronisms. And chiasmatic Hebrew poetry that 'made it' through the translation process from ancient to modern.

Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast wrote:The characters on the plates didn't lend themselves towards a conceptual transliteration.

mentalgymnast wrote:...I see the Book of Mormon as being a modern translation or more aptly put, a transliteration. But not transliteration in the traditional meaning of the word. Instead of grapheme to grapheme or "letters of the source script to letters pronounced similarly in the target script" resulting in "conversion of a text from one script to another"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transliteration

I see it as a transliteration resulting in the conversion of one historical period to another using conceptual 'mapping(s)' during the translation process. This is possibly one reason that the actual plates weren't always being accessed during the translation. The characters on the plates didn't lend themselves towards a conceptual transliteration.

[An]...argument for a conceptual model is that Joseph Smith did not treat the Book of Mormon like a text divinely and infallibly translated. He treated it as something over which he had some right of authorship—and which he could improve using his expanding mental and spiritual faculties. In the two post-1830 editions of the Book of Mormon published during his lifetime, he reworded the text and allowed others to do so. He displayed no self-consciousness in sending out to the world, without explanation or justification, a Book of Mormon containing hundreds of revisions to the grammar and clarity of his original translation, and even a handful of doctrinal revisions or clarifications.
https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/writte ... anslation/

There is also internal textual evidence to support a conceptual model...the original Book of Mormon manuscript shows signs that Joseph spelled out names to the scribes (a fact tending to confirm that he saw the text “letter by letter”); and the text may also contain usage patterns from outside Smith’s environment. Yet the text displays other features more readily ascribed to Smith. The rustic grammar and provincial expressions that vexed B. H. Roberts, the book’s verbal tangles, limited vocabulary, and exaggerated use of King-Jamesisms all suggest that Joseph Smith’s voice manifests itself strongly in, if not throughout, the translated text...

...The conceptual model has been extended and systematized by scholars such as Book of Mormon commentator Brant Gardner who argues that adopting the conceptual model eliminates many of the objections to Book of Mormon historicity, such as its possible misnaming of ancient American flora and fauna.

honorentheos wrote:It's an odd thing to claim given the effort required to scape out the slightest bit of evidence one can tentatively associate with an ancient culture while it's saturated with 19th century views on practically every topic imaginable.

MG wrote:That the Book of Mormon would speak to 'our generation' using language that we can 'liken unto ourselves' would make sense, wouldn't it?

honorentheos wrote:Frankly, I think other than familiarity and the appeal of certain biblical language there isn't much to recommend it regardless of it's origin. That is appears to be a clear fraud is just closing the lid on the debate not the sum total of it.

MG wrote:
Honor, there are some pretty smart folks that would take issue with you succinct conclusion. The translation/transliteration process that I've described seems to mandate...or at least allow for...a significant amount of 19th century and whatever else we find in the Book of Mormon, including what appear to be anachronisms. And chiasmatic Hebrew poetry that 'made it' through the translation process from ancient to modern.

mentalgymnast wrote:Conceptual mapping would also lend itself to commonalities with the Bible phraseology.

This \"co-creative\" view of revelation explains why Joseph updated some of his revelations, including some passages in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, as his learning increased. Like all of us, Joseph's spiritual knowledge grew line upon line. As more pieces of the puzzle came together and as the overall picture grew sharper into focus, Joseph could more clearly understand some of his past experiences and revelations and modified them to reflect a more spiritually mature perspective.Joseph also recognized, however, that while future revelations could shed additional light on past revelations, less-accurate scriptures could still convey the word of God. In D&C 128, for example, Joseph Smith quoted Malachi 4:5-6 exactly as it is quoted in the King James Version Bible. In verse 7 the prophet Joseph added: \"I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands.\"As noted previously it's also possible that Joseph may have added, perhaps unconsciously, divinely inspired insights, words or phrases that may not have been on the original plates. The same can be said for Mormon, the Nephite prophet, who compiled and edited the writings of past Nephite prophets.We learn, for example, of similar editorial additions from the translation of other ancient documents. Two common Bible-scholar words are \"midrash\" and \"Targum.\" Midrash refers to a Jewish method of interpreting scriptures. A Targum generally refers to an Aramaic (the likely language of Jesus and his apostles) translation of Hebrew scripture. Aramaic Targums sometimes include midrashic comments (explanations and expansions) that were not in the original Hebrew documents themselves. Such comments, or expansions \"likened,\" in a sense, the scriptures to an audience who were removed — in a different era — from those who originally wrote the scriptures (see 1 Nephi 19:23). In some of these Targums it's not easy to tell where the original text ends and the midrashic expansions begin. Instead, these expansions are often seamlessly included into the translation as if they were part of the original text. Someone unfamiliar with the original document might not be able to distinguish which parts of the Targums are midrashic or original. A number of scholars believe that expansions, interpretive comments, additions and modifications are common in biblical scripture.It's possible that some of these attributes can also be found in the Book of Mormon.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/705 ... R-Ash.html

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?