Thomas Wirthlin McConkie

[_mentalgymnast]

One cannot understand very well what the possibility is if they don't educate themselves well on all the evidence that is related to it's possibility/probability.

No argument from me on that point.

Regards,
MG

[_Kishkumen]

I'm of the opinion that the Book of Mormon was composed in antiquity but not translated in antiquity. Duh. As a result of this rather obvious fact I see the Book of Mormon as being a modern translation or more aptly put, a transliteration. But not transliteration in the traditional meaning of the word. Instead of grapheme to grapheme or "letters of the source script to letters pronounced similarly in the target script" resulting in "conversion of a text from one script to another"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transliteration

I see it as a transliteration resulting in the conversion of one historical period to another using conceptual 'mapping(s)' during the translation process. This is possibly one reason that the actual plates weren't always being accessed during the translation. The characters on the plates didn't lend themselves towards a conceptual transliteration.

Where are you getting this stuff? Your use of the term transliteration is either idiosyncratic, highly specialized, or just plain wrong.

Conceptual mapping would also lend itself to commonalities with the Bible phraseology. Blake Ostler's 'expansion on an ancient text' would fit in nicely with this, in my opinion.

Regards,
MG

Epicycles. Once you see that the many 19th century elements of the text point to 19th century composition, you no longer need the metaphorical epicycles.

[_mentalgymnast]

I'm of the opinion that the Book of Mormon was composed in antiquity but not translated in antiquity. Duh. As a result of this rather obvious fact I see the Book of Mormon as being a modern translation or more aptly put, a transliteration. But not transliteration in the traditional meaning of the word. Instead of grapheme to grapheme or "letters of the source script to letters pronounced similarly in the target script" resulting in "conversion of a text from one script to another"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transliteration

I see it as a transliteration resulting in the conversion of one historical period to another using conceptual 'mapping(s)' during the translation process. This is possibly one reason that the actual plates weren't always being accessed during the translation. The characters on the plates didn't lend themselves towards a conceptual transliteration.

Where are you getting this stuff?

As a result of thinking about the translation of the Book of Mormon. I have this thing about trying to get at the meat of a matter. Sometimes that takes a bit of circuitous analysis/brainstorming.

Your use of the term transliteration is either idiosyncratic, highly specialized, or just plain wrong.

It is unique to me as far as I know. So I'd go idiosyncratic. I'm pretty sure I didn't read it in some book somewhere.

Conceptual mapping would also lend itself to commonalities with the Bible phraseology. Blake Ostler's 'expansion on an ancient text' would fit in nicely with this, in my opinion.

Epicycles. Once you see that the many 19th century elements of the text point to 19th century composition, you no longer need the metaphorical epicycles.

19th century composition is taken as a necessary component...taken for granted...in transliteration that results in the conversion of one historical period to another using conceptual mapping rather than going the route of grapheme to grapheme or symbol to symbol. When Joseph saw the words on the rock (assuming that he did) do we really know how those words got there? I suggest that a conceptual framework of translation with tight control...to a point...is not an unreasonable way to view the process.

I mean, think about it, Brant Gardner goes 'loose translation' and Royal Skousen and others go 'hard translation'. What about a middle way that involves both? Yes, it gets rather complex as one might get into the nitty-gritty...but still, it's a possibility to consider. There's just too much there in the Book of Mormon to simply toss it as being a fraud/fabrication.

My opinion anyway.

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

There's just too much there in the Book of Mormon to simply toss it as being a fraud/fabrication.

It's an odd thing to claim given the effort required to scape out the slightest bit of evidence one can tentatively associate with an ancient culture while it's saturated with 19th century views on practically every topic imaginable.

Contentious religious issues of a particular time and place? 19th c. US.
World history? 19th c. US.
Origin of the Native Americans? 19th c. US.
And on down the list...

Frankly, I think other than familiarity and the appeal of certain biblical language there isn't much to recommend it regardless of it's origin. That is appears to be a clear fraud is just closing the lid on the debate not the sum total of it.

[_mentalgymnast]

There's just too much there in the Book of Mormon to simply toss it as being a fraud/fabrication.

It's an odd thing to claim given the effort required to scape out the slightest bit of evidence one can tentatively associate with an ancient culture while it's saturated with 19th century views on practically every topic imaginable.

That the Book of Mormon would speak to 'our generation' using language that we can 'liken unto ourselves' would make sense, wouldn't it?

Frankly, I think other than familiarity and the appeal of certain biblical language there isn't much to recommend it regardless of it's origin. That is appears to be a clear fraud is just closing the lid on the debate not the sum total of it.

Honor, there are some pretty smart folks that would take issue with you succinct conclusion. The translation/transliteration process that I've described seems to mandate...or at least allow for...a significant amount of 19th century and whatever else we find in the Book of Mormon, including what appear to be anachronisms. And chiasmatic Hebrew poetry that 'made it' through the translation process from ancient to modern.

Allowing for apologetic work that has been done on the Book of Mormon from various angles, I think that we ought to keep an open mind...rather than close the door.

But again, that's me. I realize that your views are going to vary. Your views in regards to Grant Hardy's work and others demonstrates that you have a particular bias that is in favor or leans towards the evidence that you see as 'proof' of the Book of Mormon's fraudulent nature.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Probably having to do with the acceptance of the probability/possibility of LDS truth claims having merit. And also anything having to do with the acceptance of the probability/possibility of the existence of a creator/God. Because, maybe, that's where your mind has closed.

One cannot understand very well what the possibility is if they don't educate themselves well on all the evidence that is related to it's possibility/probability. The problem I have brought up with you, as I see it, is you have not educated yourself well on much of the evidence related to LDS truth claims. You have even admitted some of this ignorance. This is an indication closed mindedness.

In the eye of the beholder.

Until reality hits.

The question...at that point...is whether or not that's the end of the story/quest. I think not. That end may be the beginning of another 'reality' as one continues to live and learn. I'd hate to think that reality has a set point and that "all the thinking has been done" as one reaches a particular end point of investigation/learning. Is it not possible that there is another "reality" waiting in the wings as one is patient and pursues further light and knowledge, rather than taking a hit and giving up?

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

I don't understand why anyone would argue that the Book of Mormon is ancient or even say that they are open to the possibility that it is. It isn't at all ancient in the sense of "composed in antiquity." I don't see that there is any reason to have hope in the possibility. Somehow, people I admire and like, such as Dan Witherspoon, do say they hold such a possibility open. I guess that makes me closed minded. It is true that I do not know for an absolute certainty that no part of the Book of Mormon that is not cribbed from the Bible was composed in antiquity. It's just that the chances seem to me to be so infinitesimally small that I think it is virtually impossible.

So, I suppose that makes me closed minded in the view of people like DCP and others.

One key point is how willing one is to get all the information from all sources. Another is not sticking to a certain conclusion before one has seen all the evidence. I don't think people like DCP have done well at all on the second one.

[_Themis]

The question...at that point...is whether or not that's the end of the story/quest. I think not. That end may be the beginning of another 'reality' as one continues to live and learn. I'd hate to think that reality has a set point and that "all the thinking has been done" as one reaches a particular end point of investigation/learning. Is it not possible that there is another "reality" waiting in the wings as one is patient and pursues further light and knowledge, rather than taking a hit and giving up?

Regards,
MG

Reality only comes in one set. All we can do is try to better understand what it is. You have many problems in the area of LDS truth claims. You avoid so many areas of investigation remaining very ignorant. It's not a surprise you send your time on subjective vague areas like some of your recent posts suggest all the while ignoring the more objective areas of investigation. It tells us you are not interested in finding out the church is not true. Not surprising since I know what that is like.

[_Lemmie]

Frankly, I think other than familiarity and the appeal of certain biblical language there isn't much to recommend it regardless of it's origin. That is appears to be a clear fraud is just closing the lid on the debate not the sum total of it.

...Your views in regards to Grant Hardy's work and others demonstrates that you have a particular bias that is in favor or leans towards the evidence that you see as 'proof' of the Book of Mormon's fraudulent nature.

Regards,
MG

No, it doesn't. You are not using the term 'bias' correctly.

​
Bias:

the action of supporting or opposing a particular person or thing in an unfair way, because of allowing personal opinions to influence your judgment

Cambridge Dictionary

You are accusing honorentheos of bias, because he is weighing evidence, while you are doing the same? Brother Jake explained this to you once before, when you expressed concern that Jenkins' 'bias' made him untrustworthy in the Jenkins-Hamblin debate:

Here's what's odd about how you've approached the question of bias: you claim the presence of bias under the umbrella of the "everyone's biased" platitude on one hand, while on the other, you only relate that bias to a particular party (Jenkins) in a particular context (his views on Christ). So you invoke generalities to assert the presence of bias, but then cite specific parties as the locus of that bias. You can't have it both ways. I mean, technically you can (and you often do), but not without looking foolish. If your assertion of bias is "everyone is biased," then why are you only concerned with Jenkins's bias? What about Hamblin's? Simply saying "everyone is biased" is the same as saying nobody is--unless you're willing to point out specific instances where specific people exhibited specific biases specifically with specifics, bringing up the issue of bias carries no weight in the argument.

Here's an example: I think that you are operating under a bias to maintain your belief in the Book of Mormon. My evidence for this bias is that you conspicuously omit Hamblin from your questions of bias in the Jenkins v. Hamblin debate, despite the fact that your entire pretense for bringing up bias was to argue that "everyone is biased." If everyone is biased, why are you so fixated on Jenkins? My assertion is that this is evidence of the bias underlying your reaction--you are motivated by an instinct to protect your beliefs, which is why you introduced the issue of bias in the first place. You invoke it under the idea of the universal, ethereal bias that infects all of humanity, but you really just want to discredit the person that is threatening your belief system, which explains the inconsistency (everyone is biased, but let's just focus on Jenkins).

That's how you argue for the presence of bias. See how that works?

Now, I'm not saying that bias doesn't exist or that the only biases are those we can point to with specifics. What I am saying is that if you want to bring up the issue of bias as a way of evaluating a particular instance or idea or discussion, you need to back it up with specifics. Otherwise, it doesn't do anything to bolster one side of an argument over another. That's if you want to engage in a discussion. If you just are looking for a catch-all for special pleading, fire away.

viewtopic.php?p=969216#p969216

Excellent advice on leaving inappropriate 'bias' accusations out of the discussion.

[_Kishkumen]

19th century composition is taken as a necessary component...taken for granted...in transliteration that results in the conversion of one historical period to another using conceptual mapping rather than going the route of grapheme to grapheme or symbol to symbol. When Joseph saw the words on the rock (assuming that he did) do we really know how those words got there? I suggest that a conceptual framework of translation with tight control...to a point...is not an unreasonable way to view the process.

I mean, think about it, Brant Gardner goes 'loose translation' and Royal Skousen and others go 'hard translation'. What about a middle way that involves both? Yes, it gets rather complex as one might get into the nitty-gritty...but still, it's a possibility to consider. There's just too much there in the Book of Mormon to simply toss it as being a fraud/fabrication.

My opinion anyway.

Regards,
MG

So, why not just take the Book of Mormon on its own and drop the obsession with its composition? The test for the Book of Mormon is its value to the faithful, not the method of its composition. If the Book of Mormon speaks to you as a believer, that is all a person can ask for, really. The actual method of composition of the Book of Mormon is a historical question that adds nothing to its power as a text. There are two powerful elements to the Book of Mormon: the myth of its discovery and revelation, and the myth in its pages. The history will not really add anything to those myths.

That's my opinion. You can continue to add epicycles to your theories of Book of Mormon composition, of course. I doubt anything I say will dissuade you from your question. Perhaps, at this point, it is as much a part of your faith as prayer or ordinances. I don't know. All I know is that there is sufficient power in the Book of Mormon without all of this speculation on composition to sustain faith, in my view. Depending on the kind of faith you want.

My biggest problem with the Book of Mormon is not the fact that Joseph Smith and friends wrote it in the 19th century. My biggest problem with the text is that it is obviously racist. The only way it can be redeemed from its racism in any way is to acknowledge that it is racist and read the text as a warning against racism. That would require: 1) recognition of the problem; and 2) a conscious, deliberate, and sustained choice to read the text against its racism.