Book of Mormon geography

[_Quasimodo]

He repeatedly refused to answer my question, while pretending he had.

I asked him if he had any evidence that Smith purported to translate the Book of Mormon by any means other than God providing a word for word translation.

It appears to me that is not willing to publicly acknowledge that every known account from a someone who was around when Smith purported to translate the plates described a "tight" translation process.

That said. I like Brant. I find that he is more responsive to questions and criticism that most all other apologists.

At some level, I feel sorry for apologists. They stand the line trying to defend the undefendable.

Brant did no better than the others in his defence, but he didn't resort to personal attacks the way that many others on this board do.

He gets points for being polite.

I hope to see him back.

[_Chap]

.. every known account from a someone who was around when Smith purported to translate the plates described a "tight" translation process.

Yes, but what do we make of that? I assume that we can approach the problem from the point of view that neither of us believes that the Book of Mormon is anything but a piece of fiction.

First, Smith said nothing that has been recorded on the subject of how he supposedly did the job. The only stories we have come from people close to him.

Are they in on the trick with Smith? Or were they his first dupes?

And whatever we conclude, what does it tell us that the early stories all point to a tight translation in which Smith had no creative or discretionary role? Was it important to the person of persons who made up the story that the translation was taken as 'tight'? If so, what does that imply?

Or could they just think of no other way that God could enable Smith to 'translate' an unknown language apart from sending him the precise words to be written?

Obviously if we are believers, the situation is different: the question then is how much liberty we have to interpret or gloss a sacred text: 'tight' translation poses one set of problems, but loose translation another rather different set. Fortunately, those are not my problems.

[_MCB]

I would rather snicker up my sleeve at the LDS who confirm stereotypes, than those who have somehow escaped from the psychopathology of LDS culture. I have no desire to sword-fight with him.

He is a good guy who probably is a positive influence on his fellow apologists.

He makes money doing what he does.

[_Jaybear]

.. every known account from a someone who was around when Smith purported to translate the plates described a "tight" translation process.

Yes, but what do we make of that? I assume that we can approach the problem from the point of view that neither of us believes that the Book of Mormon is anything but a piece of fiction.

As non believers, the only intelligent secular historical discussion we can have with believers that pertains to the translation process is to discuss how Smith PURPORTED to translate the Book of Mormon. Discussing how he "actually" translated the book is akin to discussing whether Batman or Spiderman would win a bar fight.

First, Smith said nothing that has been recorded on the subject of how he supposedly did the job. The only stories we have come from people close to him.

Since these people who described the process were not capable of seeing what appeared on the stone with as much details as they described, the only rational explanations are that (1) they all lied, (2) they were repeating what Smith told them he saw.


Number 2, in my opinion is the more reasonable assumption. Note none of them said something to effect that "Smith would not say what he saw, but I surmize that ....."
Since they are all dead, we don't have the luxury of asking the followup question, but that doesn't mean we can't reach reasonable inferences.

I would also note, it should obvious to anyone who witnessed the charade whether Smith was pretending to read words that appeared one at time, or pretending to describe images using his own words.

Are they in on the trick with Smith? Or were they his first dupes?

Mr. Hale was not duped, nor in on the trick.

And whatever we conclude, what does it tell us that the early stories all point to a tight translation in which Smith had no creative or discretionary role? Was it important to the person of persons who made up the story that the translation was taken as 'tight'? If so, what does that imply?

Or could they just think of no other way that God could enable Smith to 'translate' an unknown language apart from sending him the precise words to be written?

Obviously if we are believers, the situation is different: the question then is how much liberty we have to interpret or gloss a sacred text: 'tight' translation poses one set of problems, but loose translation another rather different set. Fortunately, those are not my problems.

The "loose translation" theory is simply a way to move the goal posts.

[_DrW]

By the way, doesn't anybody here work for a living?!! I just finish a post and am told that I have one or two more that have just been added. I work from home and have a flexible schedule, but what the heck are you all doing? Get some work done for heaven's sake?

Of course, I think I had better do some of the same.

[and it happened again when I tried to post this!]

I think a lot of us work for a living. I happen to be working in Oman right now, which is 8 hours ahead of the US East Coast. So the middle of the US day is the Omani evening, and our weekend here is Thursday and Friday.

What better way to relax after it gets dark and cools off a bit than to sit on the balcony overlooking the pool with a view of the moonlit Indian Ocean and discuss a favorite recreational topic (Mormonism) with like minded former members and the occasional true believer?

[_Rambo]

I always know when something interesting is happening on the board when the thread doubles in size. Damn I got a lot of reading. Looking forward to it.

[_Samantabhadra]

As non believers, the only intelligent secular historical discussion we can have with believers that pertains to the translation process is to discuss how Smith PURPORTED to translate the Book of Mormon. Discussing how he "actually" translated the book is akin to discussing whether Batman or Spiderman would win a bar fight.

Agreed, and this is why I think it is important to set aside the question of the origins of the Book of Mormon when evaluating Brant's hypothesis. Critics, myself included, raise a number of challenges to the idea that the Book of Mormon could have been a translation of a real ancient document. Brant is attempting to deal with those challenges by using secular historical arguments about the translation process. So Brant's arguments should be evaluated, as far as possible, on their own terms; his method is either sound or unsound in terms of secular historical methodology, regardless of whether or not that methodology is being applied to real entities. If Brant is wrong, then it should come out under a detailed analysis of his arguments, there should be some self-contradiction or other internal inconsistency. If Brant is right, or (more realistically) his methodology is in fact sound, then kudos to him for fixing some of the more glaring problems in Book of Mormon apologia.

Of course, as he himself admits, it still wouldn't serve as conclusive evidence that the Book of Mormon was a real historical document, or that the events it describes really took place, only that the manner in which Joseph Smith was PURPORTED to have "translated" the Book of Mormon is plausible when considered in relation to the available data. The relationship between available historical/archaeological/anthropological/microbiological/etc. evidence and the historicity of the Book of Mormon concerns an entirely different question.

[_lulu]

As non believers, the only intelligent secular historical discussion we can have with believers that pertains to the translation process is to discuss how Smith PURPORTED to translate the Book of Mormon. Discussing how he "actually" translated the book is akin to discussing whether Batman or Spiderman would win a bar fight.

Agreed, and this is why I think it is important to set aside the question of the origins of the Book of Mormon when evaluating Brant's hypothesis. Critics, myself included, raise a number of challenges to the idea that the Book of Mormon could have been a translation of a real ancient document. Brant is attempting to deal with those challenges by using secular historical arguments about the translation process. So Brant's arguments should be evaluated, as far as possible, on their own terms; his method is either sound or unsound in terms of secular historical methodology, regardless of whether or not that methodology is being applied to real entities. If Brant is wrong, then it should come out under a detailed analysis of his arguments, there should be some self-contradiction or other internal inconsistency. If Brant is right, or (more realistically) his methodology is in fact sound, then kudos to him for fixing some of the more glaring problems in Book of Mormon apologia.

Of course, as he himself admits, it still wouldn't serve as conclusive evidence that the Book of Mormon was a real historical document, or that the events it describes really took place, only that the manner in which Joseph Smith was PURPORTED to have "translated" the Book of Mormon is plausible when considered in relation to the available data. The relationship between available historical/archaeological/anthropological/microbiological/etc. evidence and the historicity of the Book of Mormon concerns an entirely different question.

Let's set aside, bracket if you will, whether or not Samantabhadra is dead and just proceed with a time consuming and expensive discussion of who killed him.

The pistol some claim killed him was made 100% of high tech polymers and others are quite sure such could never possibly exist? A mere footnote, a mole hill really, not even important to weapons R&D or law enforcement. Definitely not worth talking about.

But today's proponent of [undead? Samantabhadra's] killing was well spoken and polite. I'll give him points for that.

[_Quasimodo]

Let's set aside, bracket if you will, whether or not Samantabhadra is dead and just proceed with a time consuming and expensive discussion of who killed him.

The pistol some claim killed him was made 100% of high tech polymers and others are quite sure such could never possibly exist? A mere footnote, a mole hill really, not even important to weapons R&D or law enforcement. Definitely not worth talking about.

But today's proponent of [undead? Samantabhadra's] killing was well spoken and polite. I'll give him points for that.

Very clever analogy lulu and very much to the point. Still, apologists like Brant are good to have around. What fun would it be if all on this board agreed on everything? We would have nothing to talk about.

Brant defended his work without getting insulting or obnoxious (I think he may have found some of my comments obnoxious, though). It's all in the nature of board discussions.

Who would want to play tennis with someone who didn't hit the ball back?

[_Yahoo Bot]

As non believers, the only intelligent secular historical discussion we can have with believers that pertains to the translation process is to discuss how Smith PURPORTED to translate the Book of Mormon. Discussing how he "actually" translated the book is akin to discussing whether Batman or Spiderman would win a bar fight.

I would agree that discussing translation methods is like angels dancing on the head of a pin; Joseph Smith refused, when asked, to explain his translation method. To me its like debating the LGT v HGT. Plus I don't get it how David Whitmer would have ever witnessed the translation method.

Mormon scholars often debate the translation methods as ways to explain away the apparent "issues" of the Book of Mormon, much like they debate the LGT as a way to explain away the absence of on-the-ground proof in New York.

So, to that extent, I often believe that translation advocates and LGT theorists might be wavering.

To me, the Book of Mormon is what it is. No sense debating what Joseph Smith, the translator, didn't comment upon.