Brandt Gardner saves Border Books!

[_Jersey Girl]

Wait a second.... Borders went under? Damn.... Did they have any discount book sales?

Hey LDST,

The news I heard earlier in the week is that they are preparing to liquidate and that this could begin as early as today.

:-)

[_Daniel Peterson]

What is your personal opinion of Gardner's theses concerning the method of translation of the Book of Mormon? It seems as though he and Royal Skousen are pretty much on opposite ends of a spectrum when it comes to the question.

I haven't seen Brant's book yet, but I have a general idea of his position. And I know Royal's well.

I don't know that I have to choose. When I myself translate (which I do a lot), I vary between loose and tight from sentence to sentence and even phrase to phrase.

[_Nomad]

What is your personal opinion of Gardner's theses concerning the method of translation of the Book of Mormon? It seems as though he and Royal Skousen are pretty much on opposite ends of a spectrum when it comes to the question.

I haven't seen Brant's book yet, but I have a general idea of his position. And I know Royal's well.

I don't know that I have to choose. When I myself translate (which I do a lot), I vary between loose and tight from sentence to sentence and even phrase to phrase.

I can understand your reluctance to state anything very strong or definitive on this message board, but your answer seems to me to be a bit of an evasion. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but that's' how it came across.

My impression is the differences between the Gardner and Skousen theses are more than just one arguing for "loose" and the other a "tight" translation. If I Understand Skousen's argument (based on his text critical analysis) it's that the text of the Book of Mormon was "delivered" pretty much verbatim to Joseph Smith and he more or less functioned as a reader while his scribes wrote down what he said. The implications that follow from that are complex and subject to debate. But that is how I understand his argument.

I can also remember having read Gardner (on message boards) say on numerous occasions that he more or less disagrees with Skousen's arguments.

Now, I'm simplifying here, but Gardner seems to fall into the same general group of those (like Ostler, Bokvoy, and others) who view the Book of Mormon as some kind of 19th century rendition of something that had ancient origins. But if there were really gold plates made by Nephites, our Book of Mormon can't possibly be an accurate "translation" of whatever Mormon and Moroni might have written on the plates. At least that is how I understand the arguments. They seem to argue that the book is inspired and whatnot. Of God, but not really a translation of something Mormon wrote down on plates in the 4th century A.D.

Skousen, as I understand him (again, I'm simplifying) doesn't really address the questions of anachronisms and such, but makes Joseph Smith out to be more or less a reader of the "translation" that was delivered to him. If there are anachronistic elements in that translation, then the Skousen argument would seem to place the fault for those things on whoever delivered the words to Joseph Smith.

So, I guess I'm asking you whose arguments you find most persuasive? Surelyt you've thought about this enough to give some kind of answer.

[_harmony]

I can understand your reluctance to state anything very strong or definitive on this message board, but your answer seems to me to be a bit of an evasion. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but that's' how it came across.

Doggone it! Now I have Diet Pepsi all over my screen!

[_Daniel Peterson]

My impression is the differences between the Gardner and Skousen theses are more than just one arguing for "loose" and the other a "tight" translation. If I Understand Skousen's argument (based on his text critical analysis) it's that the text of the Book of Mormon was "delivered" pretty much verbatim to Joseph Smith and he more or less functioned as a reader while his scribes wrote down what he said. The implications that follow from that are complex and subject to debate. But that is how I understand his argument.

I can also remember having read Gardner (on message boards) say on numerous occasions that he more or less disagrees with Skousen's arguments.

The argument still revolves around "tight" vs. "loose," whether Joseph Smith himself translated the text or simply received it.

Now, I'm simplifying here, but Gardner seems to fall into the same general group of those (like Ostler, Bokvoy, and others) who view the Book of Mormon as some kind of 19th century rendition of something that had ancient origins. But if there were really gold plates made by Nephites, our Book of Mormon can't possibly be an accurate "translation" of whatever Mormon and Moroni might have written on the plates. At least that is how I understand the arguments. They seem to argue that the book is inspired and whatnot. Of God, but not really a translation of something Mormon wrote down on plates in the 4th century A.D.

I'm not sure that Brant would accept your summary of his position.

In any event, I think that every translation is -- inevitably -- to some extent an updating or acculturating of its original. I think Ostler went too far with that point, but it remains sound.

Skousen, as I understand him (again, I'm simplifying) doesn't really address the questions of anachronisms and such, but makes Joseph Smith out to be more or less a reader of the "translation" that was delivered to him. If there are anachronistic elements in that translation, then the Skousen argument would seem to place the fault for those things on whoever delivered the words to Joseph Smith.

True.

So, I guess I'm asking you whose arguments you find most persuasive? Surelyt you've thought about this enough to give some kind of answer.

I've thought about it at considerable length, which is why I gave you the answer that I did.

[_stemelbow]

I don't know that I have to choose. When I myself translate (which I do a lot), I vary between loose and tight from sentence to sentence and even phrase to phrase.

They both could be right to some extent then. Interesting. I'm easily swayed, being the uneducated dolt that I am. I lean toward a loose translation, but then squaring that with some elements raised by Skousen and considering some of the statements made by witnesses, its hard to maintain. Then again a loose translation makes sense on a number of levels and I look forward to seeing more of what Gardner brings to the table.

[_Nomad]

I've thought about it at considerable length, which is why I gave you the answer that I did.

Fair enough.

I have a follow up question with a preface:

It has been my impression (just based on message board posts) that Bokvoy and Gardner are at least resistant if not outright hostile to Skousen's arguments about the translation being "delivered" more or less verbatim to Joseph Smith. (In his 2010 FAIR presentation, Will Schryver argued more or less the same thing as Skousen, but about the Book of Abraham, and his arguments were also met with resistance (if not outright hostility) from the "liberal wing"of LDS scholars and thinkers.)

In your opinion, is the "loose translatoin" and "19th century inspired writings" viewpoint becoming more and more dominant among LDS scholars and thinkers? Do you think that, 25 years down the road, the "19th century inspired writings" perspective is going to pretty much be the "conventional wisdom" among LDS academics who study these things?

[_Daniel Peterson]

It has been my impression (just based on message board posts) that Bokvoy and Gardner are at least resistant if not outright hostile to Skousen's arguments about the translation being "delivered" more or less verbatim to Joseph Smith. (In his 2010 FAIR presentation, Will Schryver argued more or less the same thing as Skousen, but about the Book of Abraham, and his arguments were also met with resistance (if not outright hostility) from the "liberal wing"of LDS scholars and thinkers.)

I'm not sure that I would call it "hostility," but, yes, I think they resist Skousen's position.

In your opinion, is the "loose translatoin" and "19th century inspired writings" viewpoint becoming more and more dominant among LDS scholars and thinkers?

No, not really. Not in the circles I move in, anyway.

Do you think that, 25 years down the road, the "19th century inspired writings" perspective is going to pretty much be the "conventional wisdom" among LDS academics who study these things?

No, I don't.

[_Enuma Elish]

Speaking personally, I'm neither resistant, nor hostile to a "tight" translation model for the production of the Book of Mormon. I believe that the evidence suggests that Joseph moved back and forth between these two theoretical forms of textual production, i.e. "loose" vs. "tight." In my mind, this would account for the attestation of both biblical anachronisms and Hebraisms that appear in the Book of Mormon.

So far as its antiquity, from an intellectual perspective, I believe that the evidence for and against the Book of Mormon is basically a wash, leaving acceptance of the authenticity of its claims a matter of faith.

I myself am very much a believer.

[_Joey]

How, incidentally, do you find the time to post here.........

From the same bozo who posts his seminar. book editing. cruise speaking, dignitary hosting, travel, middle east negotiating, book reading and bishop schedules on a monthly basis.  Announces his "quitting from message boards every other month!  Can't go a half dozen posts without letting us know how busy he is!  Posts his resume as a professor at BYU but never heard him talk about actually having any classes!

And for the record of posting, both since 7-07:

Joey:  ~ 600

Peterson:  ~ 7,000. ( and let's not add in the 15,000+ at madb )

Great to be living off a tenured salary of the church!  Hell, you got  a job working for the NLRB if you ever leave Provo. Same level of productivity and entitlement 

Only in Provo baby!