Book of Mormon geography

[_Brant Gardner]

Is there any evidence from Smith's intimate circle of early helpers that he ever purported to do anything else but a divinely defined tight translation?

Your question is too specific for a simple answer. The rather obvious fact, after examining as much evidence as I could find, was that no one really knew how Joseph translated -- including Joseph. Therefore, they took what information they had and developed a way to understand it. Coming from a religious culture that was steeped in concepts of inerrancy, those ideas also entered into their discussion. It was "miraculous" because a mistake couldn't be made. The point was the miracle, not the accuracy of the infallibility, which the manuscripts clearly show was not the case.

[_Shulem]

Therefore, I see the translation process occurring separately from the physical process that triggered it.

And I take it you feel this process that triggered it was divine? Was the reading (Explanations) of the hieroglyphic writing from Facsimile No. 3 triggered from a divine source too? Can God read Egyptian?

Paul O

[_Tobin]

So I take it the answer to my question is no?

Actually, when I said yes, you may take it to mean "yes."
The physical method Joseph employed involved a stone in the crown of his hat. That, however, did not create the translation (I don't believe stones have much power in and of themselves, and kinetic energy only when someone throws them). Therefore, I see the translation process occurring separately from the physical process that triggered it.
I hope I haven't confused the issue too much by trying to be clear.

Interesting. Would you subscribe to the view that the use of the seer stones by Joseph Smith was just an artifact of the time period, culture, and beliefs that he grew up with and the Lord just worked with Joseph Smith inspite of that (basically worked within his flawed understanding and beliefs)? I tend to believe that and in fact, as Joseph Smith got used to speaking with the Lord and receiving revelation, Joseph Smith stopped using these stones altogether.

[_Brant Gardner]

As someone with a high-level professional understanding of geography, specifically human geography I have no idea how anyone can attempt to piece together more than a speculative idea on Book of Mormon geography. With the evidence currently in store, attempting to map the Book of Mormon is no different than attempting to map middle earth. Funny thing is, no real geographer has attempted to map the Book of Mormon because this would be silly. If greater evidence arises then mapping may begin.

The specific disagreements among those who agree on a general geography suggest that you have a point. There are, nevertheless, some interesting things that have been done. One of them is a three dimensional comparison of the Grijalva River against the textual evidence for the river Sidon.

I am no geographer. My interests are in seeing if there is any cultural data in the region identified that fit with the text and geography. I believe there are, so I am not as pessimistic as you are.

[_Brant Gardner]

Would you subscribe to the view that the use of the seer stones by Joseph Smith was just an artifact of the time period, culture, and beliefs that he grew up with and the Lord just worked with Joseph Smith inspite of that (basically worked within his flawed understanding and beliefs)? I tend to believe that and in fact, as Joseph Smith got used to speaking with the Lord and receiving revelation, Joseph Smith stopped using these stones altogether.

That was my conclusion. As for your last sentence, that is the evidence of history. It is also interesting that he lost some people when he stopped using stones because they no longer believed that the revelations could be true without them.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Is there any evidence from Smith's intimate circle of early helpers that he ever purported to do anything else but a divinely defined tight translation?

Your question is too specific for a simple answer. The rather obvious fact, after examining as much evidence as I could find, was that no one really knew how Joseph translated -- including Joseph. Therefore, they took what information they had and developed a way to understand it. Coming from a religious culture that was steeped in concepts of inerrancy, those ideas also entered into their discussion. It was "miraculous" because a mistake couldn't be made. The point was the miracle, not the accuracy of the infallibility, which the manuscripts clearly show was not the case.

Then why do you claim to?

Also, what is even remotely interesting about a "manuscript" filled with errors?

[_Shulem]

It was "miraculous" because a mistake couldn't be made. The point was the miracle, not the accuracy of the infallibility, which the manuscripts clearly show was not the case.

I'll agree that Joseph Smith was not infallible in his claims to translate an ancient language. But really, what is the miracle in his translations of Facsimile No. 3? I fail to see or discern any kind of miracle in deciphering the writing in which he so miraculously (with authority) claimed to interpret.

Paul O

[_Chap]

But are there not accounts that state explicitly that Joseph saw the English words he dictated as he looked into the hat, and was able to check that they had been correctly transcribed? . . . .

Presumably you have reason to think those accounts are unreliable?

Yes. Skousen has analyzed some these statements against the evidence in the manuscripts. The data contradict the assertions. All of these accounts are late, and (to me) show indications of shared working out of ideas. I actually cover this issue and those statements in the book. But the short answer is that there is good evidence that the correction mechanism did not exist in the way that we impute to the process based on these statements.

Of course I agree that Smith did not see the words he dictated in glowing letters inside his hat. I would be astonished if the manuscripts suggested that such a bizarrely improbable event had actually occurred, so the results you attribute to Skousen are just what I would have expected. But that is because I believe that the origins of the Book of Mormon text are to be found solely in the activities of a group of human beings in the early 19th century, and have no connection with ancient America or any divine being.

I have to repeat that I do not see the question in the same way that you seem to. I don't think Smith translated anything, so I do not ask how he did the translation. What I want to do is to recover, as far as is possible, the answer to the question 'If you had asked Joseph Smith what kind of translation he was doing, and he had been willing to answer, what would he have said?'

Of course Smith himself said virtually nothing about the Book of Mormon for most of his life as a church leader, and he certainly made no public statement as to how he did the translation. So all we can do is to ask what the belief about the translation was that was current amongst those closest to Smith. Such evidence as there is, admittedly recorded later than the events, seems to suggest that those who recounted it were agreed in wanting their hearers to conclude that Smith received the translation more or less word for word as it was written down.

[_Themis]

So, if a text says that something existed and it isn't in the dirt, it becomes a question of interest.

Only if the text has been confirmed to be of ancient origin.

[Guest]

Not at all. They already know why very few horses (if any) persisted. They were eaten. That is pretty well known and was the fate of most of the larger fauna in the New World that was here but didn't survive mankind. It would be a question of when, not whether.

I am really quite tired of being called a liar. I suppose you might suggest that my source was lying to me, but I happen to know enough about the source that it would be the least likely scenario. So, your resort to not having the evidence is to assume that I don't. Poor form.

You will note that while I have indicated that there have been tests, that I am not touting them as probatory of anything significant. I can't see how that merits accusations that I am either a silly Mormon or that I am a liar. You are the one making a mountain out of this molehill.

No sir, this is not a molehill. It is accepted by all but the fringe elements that the horse in America became extinct and was reintroduced by Europeans. The very fact that feral horses reproduced and spread so rapidly frames the question of why the horse died out in the first place. The environment of America certainly provided for a thriving population of horses. It was absent or it would have thrived. The idea of only a few and they were eaten does not agree with the facts.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes ... ower/3151/
“Wherever man has left his footprint in the long ascent from barbarism, we will find the hoofprint of the horse beside it.”

If the horse were in America before Columbus your explanation of them being eaten is not sufficient. It does not address why other people in other parts of the world domesticated a domesticatable animal while America's people simply ate it. This also fails to recognize how rapidly the horse cultures of the American Indian grew and spread. The humans in America were certainly able to incorporate the horse because they in fact did, once it was present in their landscapes.

You claim that Mormon scientists have data of horses before Columbus, then you say you don't know why it is not published. The assertion that a small number of scientists have something that no other mainstream researches have and then not properly publishing it for peer review in professional journals screams PSEUDO.

You see, this is not about the Book of Mormon, it is about reality, or rather the lack thereof.

And Mormon apologists wonder why they can't get no respect.