130 replies to this topic

[Hyrum Page]

Quote

But, as a matter of fact, an angelically bestowed vision does seem to me comparable to a multi-media extravaganza.�?�  Nephi and Lehi's visions in 1 Nephi would be idea for cinematic purposes, I think.

On second thought I think you are right about this. I stick by my contention that narrative is an important element in angelic instruction as Joseph Smith and Book of Mormon figures experienced it. Your narrow reading of Lucy Mack Smith would be a glaring exception, and for that reason your reading is unlikely.

Quote

Since you've now shifted from drawing sweeping conclusions from little or no evidence to personal insult, I think we're done.

As for Lucy's statement, you are offering a very incomplete reading of what I am doing. The issue of the form of angelic instruction is substantive. Taking umbrage is no substitute for tackling the issues. If you take my characterization of what you have done in your argument as a personal insult, then I have no need of ever paying attention when you use the term ad hominem again.

Moderator:  You are on the top ten of posters most edited for personal insults.  Attempting to shift blame to any perceived reaction to your insults will not help you.  You are very close to the queue.

I apologize for saying "some people are beyond help." I did not see it as anything more than playful at the time, but I can see how it could be construed as insulting. I can recall being edited exactly once for insulting. You edited 1 post on this thread for referring to someone else's limited experience. Since that experience was being compared to someone who had angelic ministrations and visions, I fail to see how this would be particularly insulting. I am surprised that this instance of editing has placed me in the top 10. I congratulate you on running such a well-mannered board.

Edited by Hyrum Page, 30 January 2006 - 11:29 PM.

[why me]

James Clifford Miller, on Jan 30 2006, 09:28 PM, said:

As usual, Daniel has a fair amount of valid points.�?�  As a regular participant on "The Board That Cannot Be Named," I see a fair amount of the kind of nonsense he mentioned.

However, the point is still valid, I think, about FARMS being mentioned in exit stories as a reason for leaving the Church by exmormons.�?�  And, rather than being like those medieval scholars who sat around in their cloisters arguing over how many teeth a horse had, using logic and quoting obscure sources, why not just go out and find some horses and count their teeth?�?�  Why not log onto those exmormon websites and read the comments yourself?�?�  And maybe count how many mention FARMS as helping them decide to leave the Church.�?�  And maybe read their reasons?

Just a suggestion.

James Clifford Miller
[email protected]

Been there, did that. But thanks for the tip.

I have read these stories for quite some time and I must say that they are just that stories. I am sure that people seeking 'evidence' go to farms and seek out evidence. And then to their dissatisfication find no 'evidence' that helps lessen the seed of doubt.

The exmo boards serve one main function: to make sure that the people who leave the lds faith, remain 'left'. I see no other function. What needs to be understood, by many who leave, is that the coin does have two sides. No critic can provide the knockout punch, nor can they prove the lds church false. But they can feed the seed of doubt with all sort of speculations as we have seen from Hyrum on this thread. And yea, it doeseth sound goodth.

But in reality, this will always be a matter of faith and not speculation. The good ol' 'It coulda, it coulda, it coulda happened' should not be a part of the academic discussion...proof of the writing is what is needed and not a 'a coulda or a shoulda'.

And James in your heart of hearts, I know that you know this, right?

Edited by why me, 30 January 2006 - 11:49 PM.

[Hyrum Page]

Quote

And whether he saw these major elements of the narrative framework or not, Joseph Smith is supposed to have learned the broadest outlines of BoM history from the angel in 1823 - e.g., that Israelites had come to the New World, divided into groups, kept records, waged wars of extermination, etc. These reports coupled with the cultural and likely small-narrative reports he offered his family from September to November 1823 would have provided a nice beginning point for plotting out the narrative as a whole over the next four a half years, on the hypothesis that JS composed the book gradually over that time.

I guess that pretty much settles it then. Whether from the material reported to Lucy Mack Smith et al. or the other sources you allude to, there was plenty of material provided before the plates were retrieved to contribute to the final product--the English translation of the Book of Mormon.

[DonBradley]

Another point to be noted here is that evidence is anything that makes a hypothesis more (or less) likely. While JS's reporting details of Nephite worship, warfare, and the like in 1823 is not evidence that helps us decide between the gradual-composition hypothesis and the antiquity hypothesis, these are not the only two theories, and this information does constitute evidence strengthening the former hypothesis, since the gradual composition of the Book of Mormon by JS from 1823 to 1828 or 1829 is more probable if JS definitely possessed information he could work from in 1823 than it would be if he did not clearly have such information.

IOW, Lucy Mack Smith reports don't constitute evidence useful in deciding between the antiquity hypothesis and 1823-1828 composition hypothesis. Since these are not the only two hypotheses, and since the latter hypothesis is decidedly more likely given the Lucy Mack Smith report, it still has value as evidence favoring that hypothesis over and against the total field of possible hypotheses.


Don Bradley

Edited by DonBradley, 30 January 2006 - 11:37 PM.

[Hyrum Page]

Quote

Another point to be noted here is that evidence is anything that makes a hypothesis more (or less) likely.

This is my understanding of the term. I am getting the feeling that some require that a single evidence independently prove something before it can be considered evidence. Until then it is only "consistent" with a hypothesis. I am puzzled by this.

Quote

IOW, Lucy Mack Smith reports don't constitute evidence useful in deciding between the antiquity hypothesis and 1823-1828 composition hypothesis. Since these are not the only two hypotheses, and since the latter hypothesis is decidedly more likely given the Lucy Mack Smith report, it still has value as evidence favoring that hypothesis over and against the total field of possible hypotheses.

Yes. And my point is not that Joseph Smith simply composed the Book of Mormon out of whole cloth. I am more interested in what the term "translate" can mean. I know that it has been taken in the sense of rendering text of one language into another language, but the Lord's instructions to Oliver Cowdery, for instance, suggest something far more creative and interesting:

  8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
  9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.
  10 Now, if you had known this you could have translated; nevertheless, it is not expedient that you should translate now.

Here we see someone who has no knowledge of the ancient language in question pondering deeply about what the text says. Such an exercise must involve a great deal of imagination. The confirmation of the Spirit provides direction in the choices the "translator" makes. Given the fact that Joseph Smith was already given the background or outline of the history of these ancient Americans, his choices in translation (i.e. the formation of the narrative) would have been much more informed than Cowdery's. The "translation" process Smith engages in is obviously much more complicated than most seem to conceive it.

[DonBradley]

HUH! Cool!

FWIW, this was roughly my hypothesis of Book of Mormon origins several years ago. I saw the Book of Mormon as inexact history, something like historical fiction, in which Joseph Smith used his conversations with Moroni and his visions of the ancient Nephites as a springboard for "studying out" in his mind the text, which - by the subjective and interpretive nature of the process - resulted in his inadvertantly inserting much of himself and his environment into the framework provided by Moroni and his visions. On this view, at the level of broad history, the work was historical, but at the level of the words, Joseph Smith was the author of the book - he was the one who put the story into words.

Don Bradley

[Hyrum Page]

Quote

On this view, at the level of broad history, the work was historical, but at the level of the words, Joseph Smith was the author of the book - he was the one who put the story into words.

I suppose this view would be roughly consistent with Blake Ostler's theory that the Book of Mormon is an expansion of an ancient text, or no?

[DonBradley]

I see it as going a step beyond Blake's hypothesis, in that none of the text, at the level of wording, would have been produced by an ancient author, whereas he posits texts that are ancient sitting side-by-side with texts that are modern.

Don

[Hyrum Page]

Quote

I see it as going a step beyond Blake's hypothesis, in that none of the text, at the level of wording, would have been produced by an ancient author, whereas he posits texts that are ancient sitting side-by-side with texts that are modern.

Which brings us (or me at least) back to the original subject of this thread: the Book of Abraham. It seems relatively clear, at least according to Ritner, that the JS papyri we have are the only papyri connected to the translation of the BoA.  JS was presented with an ancient language he did not know. He likely composed the BoA on the same principles as the BoM, as described in the revelation to Cowdery. None of the text, on the level of wording, would likely be ancient in that case.

[juliann]

Hyrum Page, on Jan 31 2006, 12:12 AM, said:

It seems relatively clear, at least according to Ritner, that the JS papyri we have are the only papyri connected to the translation of the BoA.

Is it clear?  Isn't this the very matter in dispute?   If it is what I am thinking (and I could be wrong) this is exactly what Ritner does not address.   He just makes an announcment.   Do you have information to the contrary?

[Hyrum Page]

Quote

Is it clear?  Isn't this the very matter in dispute?   If it is what I am thinking (and I could be wrong) this is exactly what Ritner does not address.   He just makes an announcment.   Do you have information to the contrary?

I suppose the matter is in dispute. Certain LDS scholars dispute that we have all of the papyri. I don't agree with them. I am sure you are not impressed by that. From what I recall of Ritner, the documents as extant conform to what an expert would expect of their content and length. I personally don't see any compelling reason to push the case for anomalies. In the case of the Book of Abraham, some LDS scholars seem to be adding anomaly to anomaly. Not only must the JS papyri themselves somehow be unique in the extreme, but the one instance of a lion couch scene in which the name Abraham is actually used must somehow be unique as well. From where I sit, it looks like a magic spell. I have no particular bias against magic, or reason to suppose the document  is more than a magic spell, so I don't see the need to make a case for it being something other than what it appears to be.

But back to the original topic--I don't find the early descriptions of the papyri to suggest the existence of anything more than what is extant today. Indeed, I see no reason to posit a missing text, other than the lack of a clear correllation between Joseph Smith's translation and the papyri.