Cinepro Schools MAD on the "Horse-Tapir" Issue

[_Sethbag]

Seth,

Thanks for the discussion. SP asks why people post on these topics. This is one of the reasons I do--to reason through assumptions we all have and get reaction from all angles. I like hearing different perspectives, and I hope you don't mind hearing how at least one believer makes assumptions on certain issues.

I don't mind hearing how at least one believer makes assumptions on certain issues. Keep in mind I'm a former believer myself. I can remember well the kinds of thoughts that would go through my mind when I was confronted with things that don't really make sense about the church. At the risk of projecting onto you, let me state that in hindsight I can recognize that I would often find ways of explaining things that I would prefer not because they were more likely to be true, but because they were more likely to get the church out of trouble.

I've always considered the D&C passage you bring up to refer to a time after the Spirit has enlightened Joseph as to the meaning of the words on the plates.

Here's where I think you start some handwaving. I'll explain why in a moment.

To me the passage doesn't make sense if this hasn't occurred. As you point out (as did Cinepro on the other board using Japanese as the example), it doesn't make much sense to study something in your mind if you don't even understand the language in which it is written.

I agree, and I think this actually works against what you said in the first part.

Likewise the passage doesn't make much sense to me if Joseph is simply reading words that scroll by in the iStone. On the other hand, I have several decades of professional experience in understanding basic meaning components in other languages and then struggling to articulate those meanings in English words. And to me, the D&C passage fits this context--Joseph is spiritually given to understand the meaning and then is asked to formulate his attempted translation in his mind and then seek a spiritual comfirmation about his attempt at articulating the meaning in English.

And here's the nub of it. I too speak a foreign language, German in my case. When I read in German, I think in German, and there are often times when I will understand something in German, but if you asked me to translate what I'd just read, I would really have to think hard how best to express it in English. I think this is the kind of thing you're talking about. It's a problem that's familiar to me.

But I understand German. And when you're reading something in another language and trying to decide how to translate it into English, you understand what it means in that other language.

Joseph Smith didn't understand Hebrew, nor Mayan, nor Egyptian, nor any other language, real or hypothetical, which you might care to throw in there. Joseph wasn't understanding "I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents..." in ancient Hebrew and then fishing around for how to express this in English. What do you mean when you say Joseph was "spiritually given to understand"? When I understand something, I understand it in English, or I understand it in German. I don't know any other languages, so I can't understand anything that isn't expressed mentally in one of those two.

I think either you mean that Joseph's brain was temporarily altered to include a maturity in ancient Hebrew expressed in Reformed Egyptian that would allow him to understand things and then have to fish around for the right way to say it in English, or else your "spiritually given to understand" is just hand-waving.

I respectfully suggest it is the latter. By saying this, you think you are giving an explanation that suffices to knit the whole story together into some coherent whole. But it's a specious statement. Joseph Smith didn't know any languages other than English, so there was no language for him to "spiritually be given to understand" specifics like "I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents" in and have to fish for the right way to express this in English.

... When Joseph started translating (116 pages) he placed the U&T over a copy of the characters he had taken from the plates. ... And when he started using the seer stone...

Do you see how problematic this whole story is? We've got a mishmash of various claims. First it's the U&T, which is a breastplate with silver bows holding stones, that Joseph puts on. Then it's a "seerstone" placed into the bottom of Joseph's hat. We've got eyewitnesses claiming Joseph was reading a translation off the ethereal parchment that he would see in his stone, then we've got people like you claiming Joseph was "spiritually given to understand" the subject matter, but not in English, and he then had to produce an English rendering of this understanding and run it past the Spirit a la D&C 9.

How much of this can be better explained by people later looking back and dealing with inconsistent original claims? Ie: Joseph Smith and company couldn't get (and keep) their stories straight, and over time, people had recorded different claims, and now we get to sift through all of this and try to make sense of it.

And people like you expend valuable brain cells trying to make it work in your mind because you assume that somehow it actually does work out. This stuff doesn't really work out. It doesn't make much sense because it never did make any sense: we're looking at a mishmash of different explanations given by various people involved in various ways in order to avoid discussing the actual production of the Book of Mormon, for whatever reason.

[_J Green]

Seth,

Did you learn German in the service or on a mission? I took three years of it at BYU and still don't speak it very well. But I am flying into Frankfurt at the end of this month for a conference at Ramstein Air Force Base. Good time for perusing the Christmas shops in Kaiserslautern, right?

I can remember well the kinds of thoughts that would go through my mind when I was confronted with things that don't really make sense about the church. At the risk of projecting onto you, let me state that in hindsight I can recognize that I would often find ways of explaining things that I would prefer not because they were more likely to be true, but because they were more likely to get the church out of trouble.

I don't mind projecting--most of us assume that others are like us to some extent. But if I understand what you're saying, we may have different ways of approaching LDS phenomena. I've already addressed the truthfulness issue to my own satisfaction and I don't re-address it with every perceived problem or even with an aggregate of them. If I understand B.H. Roberts' approach, it would be something similar. E.g., "If I know the Book of Mormon to be true, then let's look at each issue and try to understand it on its own terms." I don't do it for apologetic reasons but to satisfy my own curiosity (intellectual and spiritual). If you look at my posting history on the two boards, you won't find me popping up on every issue offering any apologetic excuse as a defense. That's not me. If I'm entering into a discussion about an issue it's because I actually believe it myself (apologetics aside) or I'm entertaining the plausibility of it and want the flies to gather and show me what's left of the argument.

When I read in German, I think in German, and there are often times when I will understand something in German, but if you asked me to translate what I'd just read, I would really have to think hard how best to express it in English. I think this is the kind of thing you're talking about. It's a problem that's familiar to me.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

But I understand German. And when you're reading something in another language and trying to decide how to translate it into English, you understand what it means in that other language.

Joseph Smith didn't understand Hebrew, nor Mayan, nor Egyptian, nor any other language, real or hypothetical, which you might care to throw in there.

And

I think either you mean that Joseph's brain was temporarily altered to include a maturity in ancient Hebrew expressed in Reformed Egyptian that would allow him to understand things and then have to fish around for the right way to say it in English, or else your "spiritually given to understand" is just hand-waving.

I don't believe that Joseph of himself knew any language except English. What I believe is that God gave Joseph an understanding of what the text on the plates meant as he considered each block of text in the translation process. This means that he went through the same exercise you and I have described in taking the meaning and transferring it into English. He didn't know the language of himself, but God helped him understand the meaning that was there. I don't think his brain was altered. And I don't think he then knew whatever language was on the plates outside the translation process. But I think the theory that he temporarily understood the meaning as part of the process helps us understand (from a believer's perspective at least) his fascination with Egyptian and his confidence that he could then work out the language on his own. He was involved in transferring meaning and thus felt he could then match the symbols to the meaning on his own later.

And I don't mean the above simply as an apologetic or as a way to justify my belief to myself. There are quite a few things I don't understand and for which I don't accept some of the apologetic arguments out there, so I shouldn't have any issue throwing this in with the others, right? I simply think that this is likely what happened when I consider both what I know and what I believe.

Do you see how problematic this whole story is? We've got a mishmash of various claims.

I think I can understand the incredulity from a critic's perspective. There are certainly a lot of claims, some of which contradict each other. But I also think that's fairly normal for most big events. When my unit is deployed and my guys are fleshing out an insurgent network in Afghanistan, for example, we're sorting through dozens of statements from various human intelligence and signals intelligence sources about the same person, event, or location. Regardless of the truthfulness of what really happened, you always find discrepancies and contradictions. Humans exaggerate, change nuances based on their own or their audience bias, lie, remember incorrectly, see incorrectly from their vantage point, etc. Brant Gardner does a great job in his latest book of looking at these witness statements for the translation process and using historical tools to determine where there is consensus and where the story likely started taking on religious group dynamics.

then we've got people like you claiming Joseph was "spiritually given to understand" the subject matter, but not in English, and he then had to produce an English rendering of this understanding and run it past the Spirit a la D&C 9.

True. And you bring up a great point here, Seth. I don't know if Joseph understands the meaning as if he is thinking in the language on the plates or if he is thinking in English. I understand the difference and the point you're trying to make, but I'm not sure it matters in this instance. Even if Joseph is thinking in English at this point, I think the same principle can hold true. My wife once looked at a poem I was reading and asked me to explain it to her. The text was in English and I was thinking in English, but I stumbled trying to take the meaning I could feel and articulate it in words she could understand. And this was the same language.

Another example. I know you likely don't believe in spiritual inspiration that accompanies priesthood blessings, but I find the same thing happens there. I am thinking in English and feel certain spiritual promptings in English. But I struggle taking the meaning I feel and placing it into words in English. I don't feel like I'm given the exact words to say but rather that I receive feelings of meaning that I then put into words myself. It's similar to translating from a foreign language. So when I say that I think Joseph was spiritually given the meaning of the text on the plates and then struggled to put the words into English, I don't know if he was thinking in the plate language temporarily through God's power or if he was simply thinking in English and feeling the meaning. But from my experience, I think the principle of taking that meaning and trying to express it in words is still fairly similar.

How much of this can be better explained by people later looking back and dealing with inconsistent original claims? Ie: Joseph Smith and company couldn't get (and keep) their stories straight, and over time, people had recorded different claims, and now we get to sift through all of this and try to make sense of it.

If I'm trying to see it from your vantage point, I can't really fault your line of reasoning. Of course, as a believer, my perspective is different. These variances in the witness statements actually interest me rather than test my faith.

And people like you expend valuable brain cells trying to make it work in your mind

I confess that I do find a lot of satisfaction trying entertain my intellectual curiosity within the world of my spiritual convictions. But hey, everyone has to have a hobby, right? But I also try not to judge others for their perspective, their assumptions, or the choices they have made based on similar circumstances and information. I just like the discussion. I think you're a reasonable guy, and I've enjoyed exchanging perspectives with you.

Regards

[_Sethbag]

J Green, I learned German in High School for a couple of years, then at BYU prior to my mission, then on my mission to Switzerland and Germany, and then more BYU. My BA was actually in German. I took so many German classes while I was trying to finish up first Physics and then Computer Science that I eventually finished the German BA outright. That was a long time ago now, but I've kept up with my German better than most RMs manage to do, and recently took the DLPT in German and maxed it (3/3). Sadly, German is "dominant in the force" so there's no extra pay for it.

I'm going on a bike ride now. When I return I'll address the rest of your post.

[_J Green]

Nice. I'm off with my wife for date night. Catch you later.

[_Sethbag]

But if I understand what you're saying, we may have different ways of approaching LDS phenomena. I've already addressed the truthfulness issue to my own satisfaction and I don't re-address it with every perceived problem or even with an aggregate of them. If I understand B.H. Roberts' approach, it would be something similar. E.g., "If I know the Book of Mormon to be true, then let's look at each issue and try to understand it on its own terms."

There are some questions where the truthfulness of the church simply cannot be avoided as an issue. For instance, claims that the Book of Mormon is not an authentic ancient document, written by ancient people who actually existed, etc. are claims about whether the church is true. If you simply decide that you already know that the Book of Mormon is true, and engage the questions while assuming that somehow, the charges or claims must be false, then you really cannot seriously engage these questions.

Do you acknowledge that with such questions, assuming that the church/Book of Mormon/Joseph Smith/etc. are really true, and not allowing the possibility that the claims against them are in fact correct, could in fact blind you to the reality of the situation? Because that is what I claim happens.

I don't do it for apologetic reasons but to satisfy my own curiosity (intellectual and spiritual)

I'm curious what you mean by this in the context of claims that touch directly upon the veracity of the LDS truth claims, given that you have already decided that the LDS church is true, and apparently will not revisit that question while considering such questions. What, intellectually or spiritually, do you expect to get out of visiting such questions, if you are only willing to take one side of the argument seriously?

When I read in German, I think in German, and there are often times when I will understand something in German, but if you asked me to translate what I'd just read, I would really have to think hard how best to express it in English.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

That's what I thought. I've already posted what I think is wrong with this conception of the translation process, but I'll try to resummarize as succinctly as possible.

When we think complex thoughts (not just simply emotions), we think in language. Joseph Smith only knew English, therefor he could only think complex thoughts (of the type that the Book of Mormon could be the "translation" of) in English. God "giving Joseph Smith spiritually to understand" what was written on the plates could only have occurred in English, because Joseph Smith didn't understand any other languages. If Joseph Smith received the "understanding" in English, then why the difficulty in "translating" this into English?

I can only see a way around this if you hand-wave the notion that God magically changed Joseph Smith's mind so that he could temporarily both read Reformed Egyptian characters expressing Hebrew words, and understand the Hebrew in that conceptual way that I can do in German and you can do in other languages, but only while he was translating the Book of Mormon. But there's no evidence that Joseph Smith had his mind temporarily adjusted in this way, and no witness testimony that makes the claim, Joseph Smith himself never said this happened, etc.

I don't believe that Joseph of himself knew any language except English. What I believe is that God gave Joseph an understanding of what the text on the plates meant as he considered each block of text in the translation process. This means that he went through the same exercise you and I have described in taking the meaning and transferring it into English.

Except that you and I have already agreed that this process occurs (in everyone outside of Joseph Smith, at least) in the minds of people who understand both the source language, and the target language. Joseph Smith didn't understand any of the languages posited as the source language of the Book of Mormon. So how was God giving him an understanding of it? As Joseph thought about these things, *poof* God feeds Joseph this understanding. What was going on in Joseph's mind right then? What form were these thoughts in that God poofed into his mind?

He didn't know the language of himself, but God helped him understand the meaning that was there.

But language is how we understand meaning. I'm not talking about emotions here.

1 Behold, it came to pass that I, Omni, being commanded by my father, Jarom, that I should write somewhat upon these plates, to preserve our genealogy—

2 Wherefore, in my days, I would that ye should know that I fought much with the sword to preserve my people, the Nephites, from falling into the hands of their enemies, the Lamanites. But behold, I of myself am a wicked man, and I have not kept the statutes and the commandments of the Lord as I ought to have done.

3 And it came to pass that two hundred and seventy and six years had passed away, and we had many seasons of peace; and we had many seasons of serious war and bloodshed. Yea, and in fine, two hundred and eighty and two years had passed away, and I had kept these plates according to the commandments of my fathers; and I conferred them upon my son Amaron. And I make an end.

Consider this passage from Omni. How do you propose that God "gave Joseph spiritually to understand" this passage, but not in English, and not in a language Joseph didn't know, such that Joseph had to wrestle in his mind over how to translate this into English. This is complex stuff, which requires language to express.

And people like you expend valuable brain cells trying to make it work in your mind

I confess that I do find a lot of satisfaction trying entertain my intellectual curiosity within the world of my spiritual convictions. But hey, everyone has to have a hobby, right? But I also try not to judge others for their perspective, their assumptions, or the choices they have made based on similar circumstances and information. I just like the discussion. I think you're a reasonable guy, and I've enjoyed exchanging perspectives with you.

I don't know how much you've exposed yourself to the critical and apologetic arguments around the Book of Abraham, or Joseph Smith's lying about practicing polygamy, and taking wives (including other men's wives) behind Emma's back in deceitful ways, etc. If this is just an intellectual hobby for you, I feel it only fair to warn you that there are things better left untouched, if you wish to remain both intellectually honest and faithful to the Mormon church at the same time.

[_J Green]

Hi, Seth.

Do you acknowledge that with such questions, assuming that the church/Book of Mormon/Joseph Smith/etc. are really true, and not allowing the possibility that the claims against them are in fact correct, could in fact blind you to the reality of the situation?

Sure. I acknowledge that it could happen. I think anyone who has committed themselves to any position in academics, sports, religion, or any subject has potentially become blind to competing claims on that position. I don't deny that my decisions have the same effect, but contra what you've suggested, I don't claim that this decision is permanent. I've stated before that I can't say I won't lose my faith. I hope not to lose my faith, but it would be foolish to claim it can't happen. I only mean that I don't go back and revisit that decision every time a competing claim comes up that may, in fact, deal not with the truth claim itself but merely with my assumptions about that truth claim.

A little bit of soap box time. I think it would be foolish to approach the truth claims of the church by individual issue or even in the aggregate of critical issues. Let's take the Deutero-Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon. I read a few articles from a critical perspective. I then read a few older responses by Sydney Sperry and others. Then I read a few more sophisticated critical responses. Now, convinced that there is more to the issue, I start a survey of the secular scholarly consensus. Seems pretty straight forward. But wait, there are more sophisticated arguments from the LDS side. And what do I do with Giliadi's thesis after reading his book? Now do I learn Hebrew to understand the text-critical evidence myself? What do I do about Margaret Barker's thesis that the divisions are accurate but that the servant songs, which are heavily quoted in the Book of Mormon, are likely pre-exilic?

Okay, so how much time have I spent so far on this one issue? Even if I skim that issue with a little more brevity, there are others that I will linger on a little longer and follow the trail as the sophistication of the arguments elevate on each side. How long does this go on before I decide? I can't imagine placing my spiritual life on hold for years or decades while I halt between two decisions. There I stand frozen at the threshold of serious commitment and service because I have yet to get through Compton's book and then compare it to Greg Smith's findings, temper it with some Rough Stone Rolling and after that see what Brian Hales has to say and then bounce it off the response by . . . . Really? I'm scheduled to take the sacrament on Sunday. I'm renewing temple covenants next date night. I'd kind of like to know now. In the end, either there is a God or there isn't. If there is, either we can communicate with him or we can't. Either he can verify the truth of certain things to us or he can't.

So generally, no, I don't take many of the issues about the Book of Mormon and then revisit the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and then after that revisit the truth claims of the Church. I can't say it won't happen--there may be an issue down the road that does that for me--but I don't see it out there yet. I also think that many critics do the same thing in reverse. They have already committed to the book not being ancient and I doubt that they revisit the possibility of its truthfulness every time they read an issue of FARMS Insight, etc.

I'm curious what you mean by this in the context of claims that touch directly upon the veracity of the LDS truth claims, given that you have already decided that the LDS church is true, and apparently will not revisit that question while considering such questions. What, intellectually or spiritually, do you expect to get out of visiting such questions, if you are only willing to take one side of the argument seriously?

I feel that most of these issues cluster around assumptions we hold about truth claims in a spiritual setting. I like hearing these assumptions from all perspectives. It makes me think about what my own assumptions are. I find value in hearing how others think, from believers to critics and everyone in between.

When we think complex thoughts (not just simply emotions), we think in language. Joseph Smith only knew English, therefor he could only think complex thoughts (of the type that the Book of Mormon could be the "translation" of) in English. God "giving Joseph Smith spiritually to understand" what was written on the plates could only have occurred in English, because Joseph Smith didn't understand any other languages.

We're dealing further into the hypothetical than I can respond with certainty. Either God helped Joseph understand the language on the plate text in that language (i.e., Joseph temporarily understood "reformed Egyptian" because of the power of God) or God simply helped him understand the meaning of the text and did so in English, as you suggest.

If Joseph Smith received the "understanding" in English, then why the difficulty in "translating" this into English?

I'm not sure it was a great difficulty by the time he was translating the bulk of the Book of Mormon. But I think I addressed this issue in my last post by giving a few examples of how, even in English you still have to take meaning and articulate it by making choices about words. I referenced my own spiritual experiences where I believe I received intent and meaning (not ready-made sentences) that I then had to transfer into words through choices. I'll wait to elaborate further until you've seen and responded to those thoughts in the other post.

Except that you and I have already agreed that this process occurs (in everyone outside of Joseph Smith, at least) in the minds of people who understand both the source language, and the target language. Joseph Smith didn't understand any of the languages posited as the source language of the Book of Mormon. So how was God giving him an understanding of it? As Joseph thought about these things, *poof* God feeds Joseph this understanding. What was going on in Joseph's mind right then? What form were these thoughts in that God poofed into his mind?

I don't know. Joseph never tells us what's going on in his mind. And witness statements don't really appear to be judging what went on his mind either. I suspect the process you want me to describe would look similar to the process I've referenced in priesthood blessings, but that could simply be projection on my part. After all, we're dealing in hypotheticals. We've now constructed the fifth layer of Inception.

Consider this passage from Omni. How do you propose that God "gave Joseph spiritually to understand" this passage, but not in English, and not in a language Joseph didn't know, such that Joseph had to wrestle in his mind over how to translate this into English. This is complex stuff, which requires language to express.

I agree it is complex and I agree that it requires language to express. I'm just not sure what it is about this particular passage that should make me look at the process I've described differently.

I don't know how much you've exposed yourself to the critical and apologetic arguments around the Book of Abraham, or Joseph Smith's lying about practicing polygamy, and taking wives (including other men's wives) behind Emma's back in deceitful ways, etc. If this is just an intellectual hobby for you, I feel it only fair to warn you that there are things better left untouched, if you wish to remain both intellectually honest and faithful to the Mormon church at the same time.

I've followed these discussions for several decades. I'd be surprised if there was something I haven't seen yet. It's not a as much a matter of touching or not touching something as it is time, interest, and energy. I can't explore every single issue and read all the material associated with it. I usually expend what little time I have on focused research on things that really catch my interest. I understand that some of these things are problematic for you. I have dear friends who feel the same way, so I'm in now way belittling your perspective. It's just that my perspective is different.

Cheers

[_Scottie]

Cinepro, in my opinion, has the most eloquent rebuttal to the horses/tapir argument.

He simply decimates the claim.

[_Themis]

Cinepro, in my opinion, has the most eloquent rebuttal to the horses/tapir argument.

He simply decimates the claim.

I would include uncertain's remarks as well. I didn't see anyone who really addressed them. In the end the only theories that work is Joseph made it up or there has to be horses. It is not a surprise that many defenders hold out hope of horses being found.

[_cinepro]

Consider this passage from Omni. How do you propose that God "gave Joseph spiritually to understand" this passage, but not in English, and not in a language Joseph didn't know, such that Joseph had to wrestle in his mind over how to translate this into English. This is complex stuff, which requires language to express.

That would be cool if God communicated the passage of time in a montage, accompanied by this song.

[_Sethbag]

Look up "El-Adrel" on Google.

El-Adrel? Coincidence? I think not.

God is Tamarian. The Book of Mormon was actually written down as a bunch of references to pre-Book of Mormon history and mythology, using pure imagery to communicate the story. That's why Joseph Smith had to translate this into plain English!

Here are some quotes from the Book of Mormon, in it's original:

Nephi and Lehi at Jerusalem, with arms wide.

Nephi and Laman in the wilderness. Laman: with curled fists.

Laban with the Brass Plates. Laban: with heart of ice. Nephi: with spirit like a child.