Book of Mormon geography

[_Samantabhadra]

Brant, thanks for the reply. My undergraduate degree was in Linguistics, so needless to say you piqued my interest with your musings on cognitive-linguistic modeling and Pinker's "mentalese."

I have some things I would like to say in that regard, but given the depth of your responses I think it would probably be better if I read your book first. So I am going to try to track it down, give it a read, and post a response here (perhaps not in this thread, but in a separate thread devoted to the topic).

As a general statement, I also want to say that I think we should acknowledge that Brant's argument is about the Book of Mormon as a translated document. That (obviously) doesn't come without some preconditions, but he has bracketed the question of its origins, and I think--for the purposes of this particular discussion--we should do the same. That doesn't mean there aren't serious issues to work out, but as he correctly points out he is not doing archaeological or anthropological work.

[_Themis]

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.

I find that Joseph never discussing it to be a good indicator of someone who is making it up. He seem to let others create what ever they wanted about it.

[_lulu]

but he has bracketed the question of its origins, and I think--for the purposes of this particular discussion--we should do the same.

How about volunteering the time used to discuss the translation of a non-existant text at the nearest homeless shelter.

A mole hill really, not more than a footnote.

[_Tobin]

Did Oliver Cowdery say anything about his experience translating? He translated a few pages of the Book of Mormon too.

[_Buffalo]

It's funny how Book of Mormon anachronisms always comes down to the horse. I think it's instructive to take a broader view as well:

It is a convenient shorthand. I'm sure if you think about it, for most of your list the same argument applies, so it really does function well as a type rather than a specific response.

The presence of Deutero Isaiah on the brass plates

That is certainly a different type of issue. However, it also gets involved in the sets of assumptions that allow for the divisions. I agree that there has been a statistical agreement of scholars on this point, but that doesn't mean that there is still a lack of conversation. It is a worthwhile issue, but certainly not one that automatically disqualifies the text.

I don't think there's any meaningful scholarly dispute that Deutero Isaiah post-dates 600 BC. Even an amateur like myself can read the text and determine that it's very much current to the events of the Babylonian captivity.

[_Themis]

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

I always love Paul who continually brings up the one area(Book of Abraham) apologists scurry out of sight when brought up.

[_Chap]

Amazon allows 'look inside' for Brant Gardner's book The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon, allowing one to read the first few pages. See:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Gift-Power-Tr ... 1589581318

BG (pages 6-7) gives a further and very early story to add to the impression of an 'exact translation' story being current in Smith's circle, one I have not heard before. That was given by a Presbyterian minister Truman Coe, 'living amongst the Saints in Kirtland, Ohio, in 1836'.

By putting his finger on one of the characters and imploring divine aid, then looking through the Urim and Thummim, he would see the English written in plain English on a screen placed before him. After delivering this to his emanuensi, he would again proceed in the same manner and obtain the meaning of the next character, and so on until he came to the part of the plates which were sealed up.

Once again, we have a story clearly designed to suggest that Smith had no role in choosing the wording of the text.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

But we DON'T have any goddamn clue about how the process works. That's how we know it was done in the way BG is showing us. (what with all the data and junk)

[_Quasimodo]

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.

People lie (sad, but true). Especially when money and power are involved. Before one can claim that a statement from a single individual is a 'question of interest' it first must be determined if that individual has any merit or credentials to truthfully make that statement.

I think that Joseph Smith fails this test. His well documented history of deception is more than enough to cast serious doubt on any of his claims.

It seems odd to me that anyone would spend the extensive time required to examine the method and specifics of his 'translation' before determining whether or not he was just making it all up.

Brant Gardner seems happy to accept that Joseph was truly translating God's words despite mountains of reliable evidence that it was just another of his schemes.

Joseph's history points strongly to an attempt to profit (not prophet) from a novel.

[Guest]

Brant,

Thanks for dropping in. We here at the Trailer Park do appreciate folks like you and MnG discussing the issues with us now and then, and we (most of us, anyway) try to behave ourselves when there are honored guests in the Park.

With regard to your “text archeology” vs. “dirt archeology” model as described above, there is a fundamental problem. Your model requires the unwarranted assumption that the Book of Mormon text is what it purports to be. The overwhelming weight of evidence, as evaluated by any scientific or even rational criteria, shows that this is simply not the case. As Darth J would put it, (please see Darth J’s excellent post on evidence on the Sic et non thread), the Book of Mormon text has no foundation.

To then claim that there are genuine issues between “dirt archeology” and Book of Mormon “text archeology” is like proposing that archeology be used to discover the location of middle earth.

To see what I mean in terms of weight of evidence, try to come up with one truth claim regarding the coming forth of the Book of Mormon for which there is supporting physical evidence. Here are a few truth relevant truth claims relative to the Book of Mormon to illustrated my point. (These are mainly relative to the various Mesoamerican or LG theories, but would be valid anywhere in the New World):

1. Joseph Smith could translate ancient languages, including Egyptian.
(Book of Abraham and the Greek Psalter episode show conclusively that Joseph Smith could not translate ancient languages.)

2. Reformed Egyptian as described by Joseph Smith was a written language in ancient Mesoamerica.
(The written languages of pre-Columbian America as preserved in codices murals and stone engravings can now be translated. None of these properly translated contemporary writings even come close to Joseph Smith’s “Reformed Egyptian” in terms of form, nor does their content comport in any way the Book of Mormon narrative.)

3. Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from Golden Plates.
(No such Golden Plates have ever been shown to have ever existed.)

4. The history, culture, language and artifacts of the pre-Columbian New World are described in the Book of Mormon. (See Number 2 above)

5. The Pre-Columbian New World was populated by several small groups of individuals who arrived by transoceanic migrations from the Middle East.
(Exhaustive mitochondrial DNA analysis of the descendants of pre-Columbian New World populations shows that there was no contribution the pre-Columbian genome by transoceanic migration – none. It shows instead that the New World was populated by human migration across by way of Beringia starting some 15000 to 20000 years ago.)

6. At least one of these Book of Mormon groups eventually grew to number in the millions, most of which were killed in one great battle.
(Population studies show conclusively that human population growth required to go from several dozen to several million in the time frame claimed was simply not possible.)

I could go on, and on, but I am sure you get the point. In the face of this overwhelming contrary evidence, I know of not a single objective and physically falsifiable LDS truth claim relevant to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon that could reasonably be deemed as supported by physical evidence. The Book of Mormon is simply not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be.

Unless you can come up with some convincing evidence to support LDS truth claims as to provenance and veracity of the Book of Mormon (and/or the Book of Abraham), I am sure you can see why, in the real world at least, the Book of Mormon “text archeology” has no foundation, and should be dismissed out of hand, as it has been, and continues to be, by mainstream science.