Uncle Dale Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Yes, I recall very well the time when Richard Howard published the article in the Saints' Herald accurately placing the blame for polygyny at the feet of Joseph Smith....Howard was one of the few who did not actively try to halt my own investigations -- although he did try to discourage some of them.My major "brick wall" was the testimony voiced, over and over again, that the RLDS were the "true church," and so, of course, Sister Emma and Brother William could not have told us lies about no-polygamy-at-Nauvoo and the need for a Reorganization.I never lived in an organized stake, so my superiors were generally branch presidents, assorted high priests and presiding elders, assigned seventies, and visiting officials.Once I was placed in an RLDS-friendly Protestant seminary, my superior was an administrative seventy. Oddly enough, he supported my studies on 19th century Book of Mormon authorship. It was the Smithite polygamy (and decades of RLDS propaganda denying it) that was the major bone of contention.A typical, re-created conversation:Dale: "I'm absolutely positive that William Smith was a practicing polygamist, who taught the doctrine as a Divine commandment."Official: "That's impossible -- we have William's testimony, in various sources, saying just the opposite."Dale: "And Isaac Sheen, head of the High Priests' Quorum, would not even let William attend their meetings -- because William had tried to take Sheen's wife as a 'plural.'"Official: "Dale -- you cannot prove that."Dale: "I can prove that the entire world say we are wrong in our no-polygamy-at-Nauvoo doctrine."Official: "But Joseph Smith, Jr. himself denied it! -- If you keep up with this sort of nonsense, your good education and your sponsored visits to Independence will be jeopardized. I'd hate to see a promising Saint's career endangered with such nonsense."Dale: "If the search for truth is 'nonsense,' then you all would be better off without me in your church..."I went to the foremost source of latter day truth -- and met with such discouragement, that I had to find truth elsewhere.UD. Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 It was not my contention that Siolomon Spalding or Ethan Smith, or even one of their noted professors, Dr. John Smith, of Dartmouth spoke Coptic. The point I made was that within the Coptic-speaking population of Egypt, ancient words and names had been preserved, even in the face of Arabic being the nation's language.How many isolated Christian peasants in 1800 spoke Coptic, I do not know. I assume that their priests and scholars knew it and were able to differentiate an Arabic name from an Egyptian name.If, in the 1820s, somebody had taken a list of the made-up names from Spalding's Roman story, along with a list of names still being used by Egyptian Christians, to Dr. Samuel Mitchill, I'd guess that he could have differentiated the made-up names from actual Egyptian proper nouns.How many other pre-1830 scholars could have told us that "Pashur" and "Paarai" seemed more authentically ancient, than "Lamesa" and "Lobaska"?I do not know -- but I grant it possible that tranliterations reasonably close to ancient names could have been derived from the available scholarship and authentic ancient texts such as the Bible.If LDS scientists wish to publish the so-called "Egyptian" names in Helaman as proof that the text could NOT have been constructed before 1830 in English, (with insertions of some exotic names), then that is their prerogative. I do not see, however, that such assertions should necessarily force persons such as myself to concur with such LDS faith-promoting.If a consensus of non-LDS scholars eventually sustain the LDS position (in the same way they sustain other linguistic and historical facts), then I promise to take another look.UDAny hypothesis can be constructed. The only question is one of likelihood based on known facts. For example, there were no Coptic-speaking peasants in Egypt when Napoleon arrived. Only Arabic was spoken, although some Egyptian-Arabic words had come from Coptic centuries before (which even the Coptic priests would not have known since their only use of Coptic was for liturgical purposes; they could not speak Coptic). I have been assembling a list of such Egyptian-Arabic words, and even took a couple of quarters of that colloquial dialect at UCLA some years ago. The main problem is that, given the amount of time having passed since ancient Egyptian was spoken in Egypt in Lehi's day, the language has undergone vast changes, later Coptic spelling and pronunciation very little resembling the earlier forms. Extrapolating backward in time and reconstructing earlier forms of the words is very difficult at best. Modern grammars and lexicons have made it much easier than in the time of Napoleon's scientists, when such aids did not yet exist. However, Prof. Mitchill, great as he was, certainly was unlikely to know anything about Coptic. Even if he had, it would not have helped him much with anything germane to dealing with an "Anthon Transcript," for example, and certainly not for creating credible names out of whole cloth for someone's manuscript.The whole problem with Dan Vogel's notion (just for example) that Joseph Smith was a scholar -- or that one of his associates was -- is that it is preposterous. The idea that he, or someone close to him did doctoral work at Dartmouth, Princeton, or Harvard in order to create the Book of Mormon is simply not a rational or parsimonious hypothesis. The information did not exist in those times and places with which to create such a work of "historical fiction." The best scholar in the world could not have done it, and such evidence has not been assembled by Vogel or anyone else which would lead us to the reasonable belief that such a construct could be created. Snippets of suggestive information from two or three widely separated locations cannot be employed to prove such a thing, because no scholar would have known which items to choose from the virtual magpie's nest of possible choices -- any one of which could end up being blatantly anachronistic. Most information about the ancient world in those times and places was misinformation.Anyhow, no one should feel "forced" to accept the Book of Mormon as an authentic ancient document. That isn't necessary. Everyone should feel free to give it the cold shoulder if desired. I'm not going to get upset about that. After all, it is work to give serious consideration to such a document. Most Mormons would probably simply say, "If you are going to put it under a microscope, please give it a fair shake." No more can be asked. Link to comment
Uncle Dale Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Any hypothesis can be constructed....Indeed. But I have heard LDS proponents cite the Helaman "Egyptian" names as positive proof of the BoM's authenticity -- since it would have been impossible for anybody to have successfully constructed two authentically (unknown) Egyptian names, side-by-side in Helaman.If we view that as a working hypothesis, it can be subjected to study, analysis and criticism. That process would properly take place in the non-sectarian, peer-reviewed journals; so that experts in the field of ancient languages and their study in earlier times could offer professional responses in a formal manner.Once that next step has been carried out by the LDS scholars, I promise to take more notice. Until then, it remains nothing more than an hypothesis...UD Link to comment
Glenn101 Posted November 1, 2010 Author Share Posted November 1, 2010 Indeed. But I have heard LDS proponents cite the Helaman "Egyptian" names as positive proof of the BoM's authenticity -- since it would have been impossible for anybody to have successfully constructed two authentically (unknown) Egyptian names, side-by-side in Helaman.If we view that as a working hypothesis, it can be subjected to study, analysis and criticism. That process would properly take place in the non-sectarian, peer-reviewed journals; so that experts in the field of ancient languages and their study in earlier times could offer professional responses in a formal manner.Once that next step has been carried out by the LDS scholars, I promise to take more notice. Until then, it remains nothing more than an hypothesis...UDDale, I hope that you are not including me among the set of LDS proponents that are according the Egyptian names in helaman as "prof positive" of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. My points have been merely evidence against a nineteenth century author or authors because of the paucity of the knowledge of the Egyptian language in the years leading up to the publication of the Boo of Mormon.Bob, I am going to have to check my sources on the Coptic vs. Demotic on the Rosetta Stone. I had thought myself that it was Demotic, but when reading up on the subject, there were a couple of sources that indicated it was Coptic.Glenn Link to comment
Uncle Dale Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 ...a couple of sources that indicated it was Coptic....No, he is right.The script is Ptolemic era Egyptian.Coptic language is an evolution of ancient Egyptian, so it would share vocabulary and grammar with the base language behind an engraved text -- but not if the text was Greek, rendered in demotic script. The overlap would be between Egyptian and Coptic -- which I suppose is like the overlap between Latin and Italian.UD Link to comment
Glenn101 Posted November 2, 2010 Author Share Posted November 2, 2010 No, he is right.The script is Ptolemic era Egyptian.Coptic language is an evolution of ancient Egyptian, so it would share vocabulary and grammar with the base language behind an engraved text -- but not if the text was Greek, rendered in demotic script. The overlap would be between Egyptian and Coptic -- which I suppose is like the overlap between Latin and Italian.UDOnce I went back and reread the articles, I understood it a bit better. Some of them apparently were as uninformed as I am.On a nother tack, have you by any chance perused Daniel Peterson's article on the if/and conditional? How would that fit into the S/R theory. (Warning, I have posted a reply comment that is a bit toungue in cheek. Pay no attention to it.)Glenn Link to comment
Uncle Dale Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 ...the if/and conditional?...You'd have to talk to Craig Criddle about that sort of thing.He has charted out a number of different recurring grammatical conventions in the Book of Mormon -- showing where they occur and where they do not occur. He has then compared such distribution patterns against the biblical text and 19th century authors.If the Hebraism you are talking about is non-biblical, and is only found in truly ancient documents, then that discovery should be published in the non-sectarian, peer-reviewed professional journals, where other scholars can review it.Best wishes,Uncle Daleps -- are you going to be conversing with us at www.premormon.com? Link to comment
Glenn101 Posted November 2, 2010 Author Share Posted November 2, 2010 ps -- are you going to be conversing with us at www.premormon.com?I don't know for the nonce. I am currently going to school, a local community college, in the hopes of enhancing my otherwise dreary employment opportunities and am facing final exams for the current semester shortly. I haven't much free time to get involved in another discussion site right now. Maybe after the first of the year.Glenn Link to comment
Uncle Dale Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 I don't know...Ah, you must have at least five minutes of free time, hunh?http://premormon.com/resources/r006/006Resler.htmUD Link to comment
why me Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 I am afraid that I am still at the level of why bother to write the book of mormon. What would be the purpose? And why would sidney share his masterpiece with others to write a section here or there? It would seem rather stupid to do so, since the more people involved in the fraud, the more likely it not succeeding. Not easy to put your faith in others. And yet, we find the gang of three involving even more people when we think of the witnesses. Jospeh, Sidney and Oliver would have been much more successful without the book of mormon when we think all the hardship they each experienced because of their involvement with the enterprise. Much more easier just to start another christian sect. I try to imagine the thought process that sidney and Joseph had when they shared a cell with other members. What kind of eye contact did they have? What kind of facial expressions did they give each other? I mention this because when two fraudsters are sharing a cell with others who are not in on the fraud, how do the two fraudsters remain silent about the fraud when facing death by execution? Seems impossible to me. But what I do see is two people sharing a cell believing in the truthfulness of the book of mormon. I see no hint of a fraud between them. And then of course, when it comes to the witnesses, and if they were in on the fraud, why not come forward when the two masterminds are facing death by execution for treason? Why remain silent? I find these issues and many more, more perplexing. For this fraud to succeed, the masterminds needed cajones of steel to survive. And survive they did, give or take a beating or two at the hands of mobs. As a fraud, it was a dismal failure. Sidney got nothing out of it. Joseph was murdered as was his brother. And oliver went his own way, not too successful and reattached himself to the fraud. Amazing. Link to comment
Glenn101 Posted November 3, 2010 Author Share Posted November 3, 2010 Ah, you must have at least five minutes of free time, hunh?http://premormon.com/resources/r006/006Resler.htmUDDale, I have visited the site, but the S/R theory has been kicked to death here on this board. Unless you come up with something new that is solid in the evidentiary field, not unbuttressed anecdotes, I see no reason to indulge in yet another forum. But thanks for the invite.Glenn Link to comment
Glenn101 Posted November 3, 2010 Author Share Posted November 3, 2010 As a fraud, it was a dismal failure. Sidney got nothing out of it. Joseph was murdered as was his brother. And oliver went his own way, not too successful and reattached himself to the fraud. Amazing.Although I do agree with you on the psychological front, we must follow the evidence wherever it leads us. Does the evidence thus far presented in this thread lean more heavily towards a nineteenth century production or rather reflect an ancient document with Hebraic roots?Glenn Link to comment
why me Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 Although I do agree with you on the psychological front, we must follow the evidence wherever it leads us. Does the evidence thus far presented in this thread lean more heavily towards a nineteenth century production or rather reflect an ancient document with Hebraic roots?GlennI think what is often overlooked is the human demension of it all. If it were a fraud, to have all these people running around with a fraud, remaining silent, never in intense discussion within earshot of others to overhear the fraud as it was taking place over years, seems quite amazing. If this turns out to be a fraud, it would be the greatest fraud in history. And JS and the others would also be the stupidest fraudsters in the world. And in terms of Hebraic roots, I can not see Sidney having this in mind when he passed the manucript over to JS and Oliver for additional writing for his manucript. And I have seen no evidence that many individuals at that time and place challenged JS or Sidney about its presentisms. But maybe I missed something. And how if it were a 19th century production, just how these people all got together and compared notes. A writing project of several people never happens without consultations whether verbally or in written form. Link to comment
Uncle Dale Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 ...something new that is solid in the evidentiary field...OK, Criddle will release more of his new presentation over at that site today. Once Jockers has had a chance to review all of the segments, I suppose they will put that entire set of pdf files on-line. That will give us all some new textual aspects to discuss.UD Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.