Book of Mormon geography

[_Brant Gardner]

Did the Church have the handwritten scribe copy of the Book of Mormon when that was done? I believe it purports to show where this transition occurs from Oliver's handwriting into Joseph's and then back again.

There are two manuscripts, the Original and the Printer's manuscript. Much of the Original was lost to damage when it was in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo temple.

There is a place where Oliver stops writing and we have Joseph's handwriting for a short sentence and then Oliver picks up again. This is the place where it was speculated that Oliver was translating and Joseph was the scribe. Skousen analyzed it and I believe is pretty convincing that this was Joseph writing down a sentence when Oliver was called away rather than Oliver translating. That is based on the nature of the sentence. I recommend you read Skousen on that.

[_Chap]

Looking back at the page, I do wonder what important point you think your next paragraph adds in the context of this discussion. It basically says (surprise) that Coe must have heard the story from the Saints, since (of course) he didn't see Smith translating.

Of course your are correct. One paragraph should be able to explain everything, no need to read more or actually understand what I was saying before you assume it must be wrong.

Look, if you think that pages 7 and 8 of your book add a lot to what I have already said about your account of Coe's story, just paste the text here.

Or repeat what the heck it is you think you have said that is important on that subject but I have omitted. The floor is yours.

[_Brant Gardner]

Seriously? That's awful. How did the shelter know they were Mormon and where was this at [roughly speaking]?

Sadly there are prejudices that run deep. This was in New Mexico. I believe that the sisters were trying to set up something where we could provide foodstuffs or other assistance as a ward project. They had no idea that they shouldn't have identified themselves as Mormons.

I should add that, of course, I have seen some similar prejudice among Mormons toward other people. Nobody is immune, though we can wish it were different. When I was in Spain in the early 70's several people wondered why Americans had so many problems with blacks. They couldn't imagine such a prejudice. I tried to explain that it was similar to the way they felt about Gypsies. "Oh, no, that's different! They really are bad!"

There are a lot of cases where the New Testament admonitions about the mote and beam are all too relevant.

[_Brant Gardner]

If you would, name one (1) bit of evidence in favor of your assertion.

I have been around boards for way too long to deal with the "show me just one" gambit. I wrote a book dealing with the evidence. How do you think I should condense all of that to just one thing?

[_Tobin]

Did the Church have the handwritten scribe copy of the Book of Mormon when that was done? I believe it purports to show where this transition occurs from Oliver's handwriting into Joseph's and then back again.

There are two manuscripts, the Original and the Printer's manuscript. Much of the Original was lost to damage when it was in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo temple.
There is a place where Oliver stops writing and we have Joseph's handwriting for a short sentence and then Oliver picks up again. This is the place where it was speculated that Oliver was translating and Joseph was the scribe. Skousen analyzed it and I believe is pretty convincing that this was Joseph writing down a sentence when Oliver was called away rather than Oliver translating. That is based on the nature of the sentence. I recommend you read Skousen on that.

Thanks. Yes, I was aware of the two manuscripts and the damage to the scribe's copy (original). I was unaware that it was only one sentence and appreciate what you said. I'll definitely read up on it.

[Guest]

You seem to assume that I haven't. I wonder how you would know that, since you clearly have no idea what I believe or how I have examined the evidence (let alone what evidence I have examined). Don't you think that some resemblance to the scientific method would suggest that you accumulate some data before coming to your conclusion?

Brant,

Thank you for taking the time to write a detailed response to my post. You spent much more than I expected you would. And I see that we disagree on a great deal.

As one who values objective, verifiable, reproducible, physical evidence in hypothesis evaluation and decision making, I would be very interested in any such evidence you might have that you believe supports the historicity or veracity of the Book of Mormon.

You are correct in surmising that I assume you have no such evidence. If such evidence existed, and could in any way counterbalance the mountain of evidence that falsifies LDS Book of Mormon truth claims, I assume that it would be headlined at FAIR and have been mentioned several times on this thread by now.

So, if you have such evidence, would you mind sharing it?

[_Brant Gardner]

Look, if you think that pages 7 and 8 of your book add a lot to what I have already said about your account of Coe's story, just paste the text here.

Or repeat what the heck it is you think you have said that is important on that subject but I have omitted. The floor is yours.

I entered Coe's story because he was not an eye witness, and as a non-believer, not part of the inside circle. He had to have picked up the story in Nauvoo. That tells us that this finger-on-the-plates story began to be circulated very early (in fact, our records that give us the eye witness accounts are much later).

That tells us that the saints started telling each other this story very early. The question then becomes why they told that story if there were people around who knew differently? That is a historical question, and I spend some time trying to solve that question.

For some reason, you paste attempted to show that quotation as an indication that I believed that it was the correct interpretation, which is quite the opposite of the reason that it is in the book. There is a reason it took a book to talk about these issues. They are complex.

For those wondering what the answer might be, without specifics, I find the answer in folklore transmission theories. It is the reason, by the way, that we still get inaccurate artistic representations of the translation.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

If you would, name one (1) bit of evidence in favor of your assertion.

I have been around boards for way too long to deal with the "show me just one" gambit. I wrote a book dealing with the evidence. How do you think I should condense all of that to just one thing?

This is why I clarified the written word "one" with the numeral "1". I am asking for ONE (1), that's one more than none and one (1) less than zero. I didn't ask for all. I didn't ask for condensation (look, it's raining!). I didn't ask for a posting history. you are new to me and I am new to you. Asking for ONE (1) shred of evidence for your assertion (yay!) is not a gambit.

[_Quasimodo]

Finally, one of the possible approaches (and to my mind a necessary one) is to assume that the text is historical and then compare it to history to discover whether or not it fits into the proper production culture. That assumption shouldn't dictate the conclusion, but simply provide the model for how data are to be analyzed.

Gee Brant, that's a monumental leap (Knievel's attempt at jumping the Grand Canyon?). You don't think that your beginning premise might cast some doubt on your entire endeavor? A model based on such a thin premise?

[_Brant Gardner]

As one who values objective, verifiable, reproducible, physical evidence in hypothesis evaluation and decision making, I would be very interested in any such evidence you might have that you believe supports the historicity or veracity of the Book of Mormon.

Unfortunately, the place where I have laid out the majority of the evidence is also the difficult place to find it. It is part of the commentary on the Book of Mormon I wrote, which is 6 hefty volumes. Bits and pieces of the information are available from the FAIR Conference papers.

My approach is to assume that the text is what it says, the translation of an ancient document. I assume that vocabulary is a risky level of analysis, but textual actions and descriptions should show the production culture in spite of the translation (based on my experience working with Spanish descriptions of Aztec culture).

Comparing the text to Mesoamerica in a specific geography and during particular times gives the opportunity to compare events and motivations for actions with those that would have been present in that location and time.

As a single example, the text indicates that Nephites from the city of Nephi traveled north and met with people who appear to have traveled south to a location along the Sidon. This occurs in about 200 BC. The way I read the text, the people of Zarahemla were relatively recently arrived (since Zarahemla is king).

Linguistic reconstructions show a movement of Zoque speakers south along the Grijalva around 200 B.C. Archaeology shows that there was a connecting trade route into highland Guatemala, where they spoke a Mayan language. That gives us a time period where there would be speakers of a different language in the area where the Nephites were to go to--along with giving us a reason why they would head in that direction, following a known trade route to a place that was known to be possibly friendly, and at least not an enemy.

Does that prove anything? Not at all. What it does, however, is place an event from the text in a particular place and time. When there are sufficient of these correlations, then the case can be argued that the text represents people from that time and location. Obviously, one such is a coincidence. Much like historical linguistics, it requires multiple data points of correlation before the argument becomes sustainable.

I believe that they exist.

You are correct in surmising that I assume you have no such evidence.

You would have better said that you surmise that you wouldn't accept what I see as evidence. I would hope that you understand that I must have some evidence for my position, whether you accept it as evidence or not.