Your Book Of Mormon Theory

[Scottie]

Any theory of the production of the BOM must answer the question: "Were the witnesses dupes or co-conspirators." We have at least eleven eyewitnesses in addition to JS.

Oh please!! We have multiple "witnesses" for many things harder to swallow than the BoM. Do I have to explain those as well in order to call them bunk?

You must also explain the "translating with his face in hat." What exactly was in that hat? Was he reading from a manuscript? If so, was there a candle in the hat, or a window?

Or....he was making up a story and reciting it from his mind??? Again, just because I can't do it, doesn't me he couldn't.

I don't have to explain how David Blaine does his magic in order for me to know it's just a trick. He doesn't REALLY have the power to defy gravity and levitate 3" off the ground...

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't follow. How is the fact that JS was able to conceal his use of the KJV from the witnesses, a problem for skeptics.

You're presuming that he concealed his use of the KJV from the Witnesses. That kind of question-begging presumption wouldn't be allowed in a court of law, counselor.

The sources say that no manuscript or Bible was in the room -- and that, had there been a manuscript or Bible in the room, it would have been impossible to conceal.

And how does your belief in revelation explain the translation errors in the KJV finding their way into the BOM?

I've published some thoughts on this, and don't feel inclined to take the time to rehearse my views on that subject again. Briefly: It's a rabbit trail and a distraction from the topic here, and my theory of revelation has no problem at all even with purported "translation errors."

Sorry, doesn't fly. JS was not quoting passages from Isaiah, he was purportedly TRANSLATING those passages into English, and did so without attribution.

Nephi was indeed quoting passages from Isaiah, and said so. For the typical American of Joseph Smith's day, "Isaiah" was KJV Isaiah. Absolutely nobody would have had to be told, breathlessly, "Wow! That reads like Isaiah in the Authorized Version!" Joseph Smith wasn't putting anything over on anybody, anywhere, and it's inconceivable that he could have imagined that he was. Some "plagiarism."

[Uncle Dale]

I don't have to explain how David Blaine does his magic in order for me to know it's just a trick. He doesn't REALLY have the power to defy gravity and levitate 3" off the ground...

Or David Copperfield, for that matter.

Eleven people go to a Copperfield magical show and witness his making a great Siberian tiger

dissappear and re-appear on stage, before the unblinking eyes of all.

The tiger is indeed real -- and so are the experiences related by the "witnesses" to the event

(and perhaps told in wonderful recollections for years to come).

And if the Copperfield tiger event includes a great flash of light, a strange cloud of smoke and

a thunderous noise -- then at least a few observers (the kids perhaps) may come away from

their experience, fully positive that supernatural side-effects accompanied the tiger's transformations.

I truly think THAT is why the BoM itself does not rely solely upon the witness testimony --

but, instead, provides a "second level of assurance" in Moroni's asking us to determine if

it is not true.

Uncle "I've never stopped following the first part of Moroni's challenge, I think" Dale

,

[Daniel Peterson]

Oh please!! We have multiple "witnesses" for many things harder to swallow than the BoM. Do I have to explain those as well in order to call them bunk?

So the fact that witness testimony is sometimes problematic allows you to summarily dismiss all witness testimony anywhere with just a wave of the hand? I presume that you do so only when the whim strikes you.

Or....he was making up a story and reciting it from his mind??? Again, just because I can't do it, doesn't me he couldn't.

Roughly five thousand words a day, day after day, for about two months.

When I'm writing well, I typically produce about 3000 publishable words a week. I've been keeping records of my production for the past seven years. I write rapidly, but I have never been able to maintain a pace close to the pace that you breezily suggest for Joseph Smith.

I don't have to explain how David Blaine does his magic in order for me to know it's just a trick. He doesn't REALLY have the power to defy gravity and levitate 3" off the ground...

This kind of glib dismissal is certainly a handy labor-saving device, even if it's not very impressive intellectually.

[Scottie]

So the fact that witness testimony is sometimes problematic allows you to summarily dismiss all witness testimony anywhere with just a wave of the hand? I presume that you do so only when the whim strikes you.

Pretty much, yep. I'm a die hard skeptic. If your claim is too hard to believe, even with 100 witnesses, I probably won't believe it. And, nope, it's pretty much universal. I don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot or the 3 Nephites, no matter how many eye witnesses have come forth claiming to have seen them.

Roughly five thousand words a day, day after day, for about two months.

When I'm writing well, I typically produce about 3000 publishable words a week. I've been keeping records of my production for the past seven years. I write rapidly, but I have never been able to maintain a pace close to the pace that you breezily suggest for Joseph Smith.

Again, just because you or I can't do it doesn't mean JS couldn't. Perhaps this is a subject for another thread, but how could an unlearnt farm boy even READ that fast?? Let alone take the time for the scribe to write it all??? Could I see your math in how you figured 5000 words a day??

This kind of glib dismissal is certainly a handy labor-saving device, even if it's not very impressive intellectually.

And I'm sure you NEVER dismiss a fantastic claim with the wave of a hand, do you? You pour your entire heart and soul into finding out EXACTLY what that UFO sighting might have been, right??

[Jaybear]

You're presuming that he concealed his use of the KJV from the Witnesses. That kind of question-begging presumption wouldn't be allowed in a court of law, counselor.

The sources say that no manuscript or Bible was in the room -- and that, had there been a manuscript or Bible in the room, it would have been impossible to conceal.

No, I am presuming that the witness(es) were lying, ie conspirators, were wrong, or were incomplete. But to be fair, there is also room for the possibility that JS had an incredible ability to memorize and quote from scriptures.

I've published some thoughts on this, and don't feel inclined to take the time to rehearse my views on that subject again. Briefly: It's a rabbit trail and a distraction from the topic here, and my theory of revelation has no problem at all even with purported "translation errors."

Fair enough.

Joseph Smith wasn't putting anything over on anybody, anywhere, and it's inconceivable that he could have imagined that he was. Some "plagiarism."

Well other than the fact that JS wanted people to believe that the plates he found in America, and translated into English by looking at a rock in his hat contained the writing of Isiah.

Now if he had said that the BoM is a translation from golden plates found in America, except for the portion of the book where I simply copied from the KJV Bible, I would have no basis to accuse him of plagerism.

[gtaggart]

No, I am presuming that the witness(es) were lying, ie conspirators, were wrong, or were incomplete. But to be fair, there is also room for the possibility that JS had an incredible ability to memorize and quote from scriptures.

Fair enough.

Well other than the fact that JS wanted people to believe that the plates he found in America, and translated into English by looking at a rock in his hat contained the writing of Isiah.

Now if he had said that the BoM is a translation from golden plates found in America, except for the portion of the book where I simply copied from the KJV Bible, I would have no basis to accuse him of plagerism.

Plagiarism is quoting someone or something without giving attribution. Isaiah and Jesus Christ get their due in the Book of Mormon.

Go find another dead horse to beat.

[Daniel Peterson]

Could I see your math in how you figured 5000 words a day??

It's a simple exercise in long division based on the data presented in Jack Welch's article on the translation process in the recent BYU Studies book Opening the Heavens.

And I'm sure you NEVER dismiss a fantastic claim with the wave of a hand, do you?

It's all a matter of the assessment of prior probabilities.

Now that I know that your prior assumptions dispose you to reject essentially any conceivable evidence for Mormon claims, I have a better idea of how much time and effort I should devote to responding to you.

[gtaggart]

Now that I know that your prior assumptions dispose you to reject essentially any conceivable evidence for Mormon claims, I have a better idea of how much time and effort I should devote to responding to you.

Which is long hand for "zippo."

[Daniel Peterson]

No, I am presuming that the witness(es) were lying, ie conspirators, were wrong, or were incomplete.

Evidence be damned!

But to be fair, there is also room for the possibility that JS had an incredible ability to memorize and quote from scriptures.

That's not logically inconceivable. It's just extraordinarily improbable, and supported by no actual evidence.

Now if he had said that the BoM is a translation from golden plates found in America, except for the portion of the book where I simply copied from the KJV Bible, I would have no basis to accuse him of plagerism.

You have no basis for accusing him as it is. You misuse the term plagiarism, and you fail to note that, in fact, the Isaiah portions in the Book of Mormon differ from the KJV text in scores of places.

Which is long hand for "zippo."

Precisely.

[cdowis]

I didn't take a position. I simply asked why one is compelled to argue that all 11 witnesses were either all conspirators or all dupes.

That seems rather arbitrary to me.

I did not use the word "all" in my question.

[Scottie]

It's all a matter of the assessment of prior probabilities.

Now that I know that your prior assumptions dispose you to reject essentially any conceivable evidence for Mormon claims, I have a better idea of how much time and effort I should devote to responding to you.

This is a good point. I should at least leave open the possibility that it is of a divine origin.

[William the Conqueror]

Now that I know that your prior assumptions dispose you to reject essentially any conceivable evidence for Mormon claims, I have a better idea of how much time and effort I should devote to responding to you.

It sounds as if you are implying a minimum amount of time and effort Dan. Lol!

[The Dude]

I'm curious how various posters here "explain" the Book of Mormon? How was it done?

Good question. There seems to be no consensus among apologists on whether it was done with a tight translation method or a loose one. When they identify "Hebraisms" in the BoM text, that requires a tight translation where JS strictly read off the words that appeared on the stone (in his hat). Okay, fine, but then the apologists turn around and say there was a loose translation, where JS had to study it out in his mind, in order to fudge words like "horse" and "sword" that are glaring anachronisms. So which was it? Is it a good methodology to make it up as you go along, depending on which gives the data the proper spin? This reminds me of the title of DCP's article: in hopes that something will stick.

[cdowis]

No, I am presuming that the witness(es) were lying, ie conspirators, were wrong, or were incomplete. But to be fair, there is also room for the possibility that JS had an incredible ability to memorize and quote from scriptures.

And that ability included citing long dictation without errors or (almost) contradictions. The ability to create a consistent narrative, consistent geography throughout the narrative.

Includes such topics as war, politics, olive tree cultivation, commentary on various Old Testament prophets, additional details of the OT narrative (e.g. additional details of Joseph's coat, blessing, significance of the brass serpent), various cultural practices, authentic words and names found in the ancient mideast including Akkadian and egyptian.

There is much more than a "good memory" at work here.

[William Schryver]

Good question. There seems to be no consensus among apologists on whether it was done with a tight translation method or a loose one. When they identify "Hebraisms" in the BoM text, that requires a tight translation where JS strictly read off the words that appeared on the stone (in his hat). Okay, fine, but then the apologists turn around and say there was a loose translation, where JS had to study it out in his mind, in order to fudge words like "horse" and "sword" that are glaring anachronisms. So which was it? Is it a good methodology to make it up as you go along, depending on which gives the data the proper spin? This reminds me of the title of DCP's article: in hopes that something will stick.

Your indictment is only logical if a single individual adheres simultaneously to both a "tight" and a "loose" translation -- depending on what part of the book s/he is trying to explain. In my experience, one is either one or the other: tight or loose. (A joke occurs to me right now, but I'll resist the evil urges within me.)

That one group of apologists leans towards a "tight" translation while another tends towards a "loose" is simply a difference of opinion in the camps, and not a contradiction. The "tight" translation advocates (like myself) advance different explanations for things like mention of horses than do the "loose" translation advocates. For example, I know quite a lot about horses, and I'm very doubtful that the Appaloosa breed and Pinto variation descended from Spanish stock. I believe it will ultimately be shown that the "Paint" horses in the Americas descend from indigenous breeding stock that crossed with the large, solid-colored Spanish horses after they were introduced. Were there horses among the Aztecs or residual Maya when Cortez arrived? No. Were there horses among the coastal Indians when the Pilgrims arrived? No. But I think there were horses among the Rocky Mountain tribes before the arrival of the Spanish. Do I have proof? No. But I have found evidence to support the theory, and that is part of how a "tight" translation guy like myself explains things like horses being mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Contrary to popular belief, not everything is known that can be known. Or, as G. K. Chesterton once said:

"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies simply because they become fashions."

[Scottie]

And that ability included citing long dictation without errors or (almost) contradictions. The ability to create a consistent narrative, consistent geography throughout the narrative.

Includes such topics as war, politics, olive tree cultivation, commentary on various Old Testament prophets, additional details of the OT narrative (e.g. additional details of Joseph's coat, blessing, significance of the brass serpent), various cultural practices, authentic words and names found in the ancient mideast including Akkadian and egyptian.

There is much more than a "good memory" at work here.

Again....why do you suppose that just because it is inconceivable to you, that a person with a gift couldn't do it? Perhaps JS had exactly that talent. To formulate large scale stories in his head and relay them to a scribe.

As a computer programmer, people look at my code and I often hear, "How in the world does that make any sense to you!?!?!" It is unfathomable to them that I could decipher it, yet to me, it is as simple as reading a book. It is my gift.

I just don't see why it is so hard to imagine that JS could have a gift that to us appears impossible. Storyteller is certainly not outside of his character. And he was exceptionally good at it.

[The Dude]

Hope others will read it too. Maybe it'll give the nay-sayers an idea to use instead of the, "I don't know how the magic trick was done, but I know it was a magic trick," kind of response. After all, they tend to find that kind of response unacceptable from believing members.

Hey Nofear, do you know the difference between a magic trick and bona fide magic?

Critics say the Book of Mormon was produced by something like a magic trick, involving possible conspirators, dupes, staged translations, etc.

Believers, like you apparently, think the Book of Mormon was produced by MAGIC when Joseph Smith put his face in a hat and looking in his magical stone.

See the diff?

[The Dude]

I believe it will ultimately be shown that the "Paint" horses in the Americas descend from indigenous breeding stock that crossed with the large, solid-colored Spanish horses after they were introduced.

And the fallacy of possible proof is quite fashionable on this board.

(BTW, I'm almost done with 1491. Good stuff. I mentioned it on the National Geographic maya thread yesterday -- see my comment to SolarPowered.)

[William Schryver]

And the fallacy of possible proof is quite fashionable on this board.

(BTW, I'm almost done with 1491. Good stuff. I mentioned it on the National Geographic maya thread yesterday -- see my comment to SolarPowered.)

The theory that Paint horses descend from indigenous sources is being entertained by many these days -- none of whom have anything to do with Mormons -- at least to my knowledge.

My point is that there is a precedent for today's seeming "facts" to become yesterday's fallacies, and in the case of horses in the Americas, there is a trend placing them increasingly in the near past rather than the far. And, there are good reasons to argue (as many people do) that the Paint horses of the western U.S. are the result of a pre-Columbian indigenous breeding stock. Look around and you might very well find some articles about it. And look around and you'll discover that the Spanish didn't bring Paint horses with them when they arrived. They were partial to the Andalusian and Arabic breeds -- horses of solid color.

As far as 1491 is concerned, I really enjoyed it a lot. It's astounding to me that he makes such a convincing case that upwards of 90% of native Amerindians died from disease -- most before they had ever even seen a European. I also had to laugh about how the Pilgrims were viewed as nasty, smelly, dirty, ugly specimens of humanity by their native neighbors.

[Asaph]

I have an individual testimony to the truth of the Book Of Mormon. Like we said about our rifles in the US Army - "There are many like it, but this one is mine!"

I think there is a lot in the BOM that is amazing and hard to explain in light of the level of knowledge where and when it was produced, emerged, what have you. It is also sorely lacking in things that ought to be in it. At the very least, it has served as an inspiration to me and as the foundation of a religious movement involving millions from all walks of life. It has also served as the springboard to a great deal of interesting, profound and sometimes holy thought and experience that has benefitted me and many others in understanding of God and Jesus Christ and living lives in the Spirit.

I don't understand everything about the Book Of Mormon in temporal time and space nor do I expect to. I do know that there is more to come. I am certain all of our questions will be answered when we will look at these books that will be given to us one day. We have only a part of what we are to have.

Blessings

Asaph

[cdowis]

Good question. There seems to be no consensus among apologists on whether it was done with a tight translation method or a loose one. When they identify "Hebraisms" in the BoM text, that requires a tight translation where JS strictly read off the words that appeared on the stone (in his hat). Okay, fine, but then the apologists turn around and say there was a loose translation, where JS had to study it out in his mind, in order to fudge words like "horse" and "sword" that are glaring anachronisms. So which was it? Is it a good methodology to make it up as you go along, depending on which gives the data the proper spin? This reminds me of the title of DCP's article: in hopes that something will stick.

1. A horse is a horse, a sword is a sword, and silk is silk. I personally see no "glaring anachronism". The real issue over tight translation is the supposed KJV text in the BOM which implies a loose translation but does not demand it.

2. I see no contradiction between a "tight translation" and "study it out in your mind", as anyone who has translated a foreign language text would know. JS gave no details on the translation process, and I assume you are actually referring to those who claim that there was a word for word translation appearing on the seer stone/U&T. Since JS was silent, they were very likely simply speculating rather than speaking from knowledge.

They saw the hat, and a stone in the hat, but did not see the actual translation process.

[Tchild2]

A commenter in the National Geographic thread wrote:

Haven't been around enough to know what level of facetiousness was involved, but it's an interesting statement nonetheless.

I'm curious how various posters here "explain" the Book of Mormon? How was it done?

I am of the theory that the BoM was created by Joseph Smith, just as believers. However, behind the scenes I do not see the help of diety, or actual gold plates ever being present. Critics and believers can agree on one thing; the book of Mormon was dictated by Joseph Smith. If believers ask us to believe the words of the witnesses, then believers have zero credibility if they selectively ignore the competing claims by other witnesses attesting to supernatural events within their religious experience(s). By the same power Mormons feel free to dismiss those competing witnesses, skeptics in equal measure dismiss the Mormon witness claims. Hey, if LDS believes can do it, can't a skeptic?

I am of the belief that God does not hide physical evidence. Well he can't because God neither intervenes in human affairs, nor does God even see the illusionary fiction of our dual (the belief in separetness) world.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I didn't take a position. I simply asked why one is compelled to argue that all 11 witnesses were either all conspirators or all dupes.

That seems rather arbitrary to me.

Then can you explain how portions of the KJV managed to find its way into the manuscript. If you accept the premise that some portions of the manuscript, were not dictated from the bottom of the hat, ie the part that was plagiarized from the KJV Bible, then perhaps you have overstated the evidence.

Plagiarism is dishonest. It is stealing. I just wanted to point out that, by your own demonstrated definition, you just palgiarised Daniel Peterson in your post. What does that say for you. . .

[cdowis]

And the fallacy of possible proof is quite fashionable on this board.

And the notion of "not found, not exist" is rampant here and elsewhere. Right here ==on this very thread=== is the phrase "glaring anachronism" used to put lipstick on a pig.