Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

kennewick man


hondo

Recommended Posts

I love it when you quote David Whitmer (poor fellow).

Even Bro. Whitmer knew what the foreword to the BofM says, that "if there be mistakes they are the mistakes of men", which means that he knew there was a human agency involved. Which means that we can use linguistic theory and cultural diffusion theory to discuss why certain words are in the book (and why they are not necessarily stupid... because THAT, of course, is what you really want to imply, not that it was translated by "the gift and power of God").

Yours respectfully,

Beowulf

Link to comment

And David Whitmer translated how much of the Book of Mormon, precisely? How much first hand knowledge did he have of the process? How much authority does he have to explain what kind of mental and spiritual involvement was required of the translator? I can accept the fact that Joseph read the Book of Mormon off of the Interpreters. That still doesn't prove that nothing of his own mental effort and background went into the process.

Moreover, I'm willing to accept David Whitmer's word regarding things that he saw, but I'm not as committed to accepting his word on things that he didn't see. Ironically, I suspect that you're rather willing to disbelieve his word when he speaks as an eyewitness, but eager to believe him when he clearly isn't.

If it was just a simple matter of turning the stone on and reading from it, why did Joseph have to be in the right frame of mind (e.g., in Emma's good graces) to be able to translate? I can read the screen of my computer whether I've argued with my wife or not.

This is a pretty flimsy basis on which to establish your claim, Just Curious.

How about a statement from Joseph Smith himself regarding the precise mechanism and procedure for translating?

Besides, the fact is that, as I've said, the word on the plates was almost certainly the Nephite word horse. So it's not clear what relevance your claim would have, even were it true.

Link to comment
Guest Just Curious
And David Whitmer translated how much of the Book of Mormon, precisely? How much first hand knowledge did he have of the process? How much authority does he have to explain what kind of mental and spiritual involvement was required of the translator? I can accept the fact that Joseph read the Book of Mormon off of the Interpreters. That still doesn't prove that nothing of his own mental effort and background went into the process.

If God was putting the letters there and all he was doing was reading, I suspect he only effort needed was to make sure you were spiritually prepared to read. Aren't there other accounts that say basically the same thing as Whitmer regarding the translation process?

Moreover, I'm willing to accept David Whitmer's word regarding things that he saw, but I'm not as committed to accepting his word on things that he didn't see. Ironically, I suspect that you're rather willing to disbelieve his word when he speaks as an eyewitness, but eager to believe him when he clearly isn't.

Please confirm your suspicion by telling me approximately how many times I have said Whitmers account of being an eyewitness I find to be untrue...as best I can recall I have never said that Whitmers account of being an eyewitness is bogus...feel free to correct me though.

If it was just a simple matter of turning the stone on and reading from it, why did Joseph have to be in the right frame of mind (e.g., in Emma's good graces) to be able to translate? I can read the screen of my computer whether I've argued with my wife or not.

So are you suggesting that if Joseph was not in the right frame of mind that words would appear but he would translate them wrongly? I thought that when he was not in the graces of the Lord he was not able to see the words...if that is not the case then how can we be sure what is translated correctly and what is translated incorrectly?

How about a statement from Joseph Smith himself regarding the precise mechanism and procedure for translating?

Sure...and the back up statements from the scribes confirming it would be nice also...

Besides, the fact is that, as I've said, the word on the plates was almost certainly the Nephite word horse.

Yes and you have gone to just as great a length to support the horse=tapir theory as well. So pretty much you have yourself covered wether a horse is a horse or a horse is a tapir. I on the other hand do not believe the tapir theory because of the reasons I have outlined from the start...I believe a horse is a horse and when God wrote horse on the stone He meant horse not tapir. Do I believe the possibility that horse bones could be found to support this theory...certainly it is possible, not likely in my opinion given the fact that we have absolutely no idea where in North, Central or South America that the BoM even took place at....

Link to comment
If God was putting the letters there and all he was doing was reading, I suspect he only effort needed was to make sure you were spiritually prepared to read.

But that's the if that is at issue.

Please confirm your suspicion by telling me approximately how many times I have said Whitmers account of being an eyewitness I find to be untrue...as best I can recall I have never said that Whitmers account of being an eyewitness is bogus...feel free to correct me though.

This is your chance to prove me wrong by publicly affirming your conviction that David Whitmer saw an angel, along with the plates, the sword of Laban, the "Interpreters," and the Liahona, and that he heard the voice of God affirm that Joseph Smith's translation of the plates was correct. I'll be delighted if you do.

So are you suggesting that if Joseph was not in the right frame of mind that words would appear but he would translate them wrongly?

No.

So pretty much you have yourself covered wether a horse is a horse or a horse is a tapir.

And what, exactly, is wrong with that? The purpose of each hypothesis is to account for the presence of the word horse in the English text of the Book of Mormon. But the two hypotheses start off with different assumptions about what was present in the Americas. That's why it's possible to call them "different hypotheses."

I've said that I prefer one to the other, but that, as of now, it's not possible to definitively decide between them. (I have reason to hope that there will be a shift within a year or two.)

I on the other hand do not believe the tapir theory because of the reasons I have outlined from the start...I believe a horse is a horse

Just as a (m)rkb is a (m)rkb, an aetos is an aetos, "blue" is "blue," and a tapiira is a tapiira. Which must mean, in the light of your apparent doctrine that classifications are simple, universally identical, and set in stone, that a boat is a shoe, an eagle is a vulture, blue is green, and a tapir is a cow. English sets the standard for the world, and nobody is allowed to dissent. As the angry lady is reputed to have exclaimed, when confronted with a new translation of the Bible, "If the King James was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."

You don't seem ever to have grasped the point. And, after all these pages, I don't hold out much hope that you ever will.

Link to comment
Guest Just Curious
Please confirm your suspicion by telling me approximately how many times I have said Whitmers account of being an eyewitness I find to be untrue...as best I can recall I have never said that Whitmers account of being an eyewitness is bogus...feel free to correct me though.
This is your chance to prove me wrong by publicly affirming your conviction that David Whitmer saw an angel, along with the plates, the sword of Laban, the "Interpreters," and the Liahona, and that he heard the voice of God affirm that Joseph Smith's translation of the plates was correct. I'll be delighted if you do.

You are totally skirting the issue, the issue is you said "Ironically, I suspect that you're rather willing to disbelieve his word when he speaks as an eyewitness, but eager to believe him when he clearly isn't."

There is a big difference between disbelief and affirmation. I do not disbelieve he is saying this and he believes it is true and I have no specific evidence at this time to prove him one way or the other...kind of like you taking both sides of the horse/tapir issue. Again I ask....show me where I have said I disbelieve any of Whitmers accounts about anything and I will be "delighted if you do". You claimed a suspicion and I simply ask you to give me anything I have said to cause that suspicion about me...

But that's the if that is at issue.

The multiple statements from multiple witnesses would not agree with you. Perhaps you could provide us with statemens from witnesses that would cause you to not believe the other statements regarding the process...

English sets the standard for the world, and nobody is allowed to dissent. As the angry lady is reputed to have exclaimed, when confronted with a new translation of the Bible, "If the King James was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."

And how many other words in the BoM could we find multiple meanings/remotely possible definitions for that would mean totally something else...hundreds, perhaps thousands and how many scriptures would those definitions change to mean something totally unrelated or something that makes no sense...you see Dan, when you carry your arguement forward then it really begins to unravel the whole BoM and translation process, by the very nature of your arguement you literally change the whole BoM. Now honestly do you really think God would hide this book only to confuse the whole world about it or make it so complicated that few people other than PhD's such as yourself could possibly understand it properly?

Link to comment
Please confirm your suspicion by telling me approximately how many times I have said Whitmers account of being an eyewitness I find to be untrue...as best I can recall I have never said that Whitmers account of being an eyewitness is bogus...feel free to correct me though.
This is your chance to prove me wrong by publicly affirming your conviction that David Whitmer saw an angel, along with the plates, the sword of Laban, the "Interpreters," and the Liahona, and that he heard the voice of God affirm that Joseph Smith's translation of the plates was correct. I'll be delighted if you do.

You are totally skirting the issue, the issue is you said "Ironically, I suspect that you're rather willing to disbelieve his word when he speaks as an eyewitness, but eager to believe him when he clearly isn't."

No, Just Curious, 'tis you who are "skirting the issue." You demand that I accept implications that you've drawn out of David Whitmer's remarks (which don't explicitly say what you conclude from them) regarding something that he didn't directly experience, while you yourself don't feel bound by his direct and express statements about something that he claims to have experienced directly as an eyewitness. It's a manifest double standard that, for obvious reasons, you prefer not to acknowledge.

I do not disbelieve he is saying this and he believes it is true

And, of course, I neither disbelieve that David Whitmer said what you cite -- I've read the passage many, many times before -- nor do I disbelieve that he held his view sincerely. So we're equal. Why, then, am I obligated to believe that David Whitmer's second hand report is also completely accurate (and that your dubious inferences from it are true), while you're free to disbelieve, or even to suspend judgment regarding, his explicit eyewitness testimony?

The multiple statements from multiple witnesses would not agree with you.

Provide a few, and we'll see.

And how many other words in the BoM could we find multiple meanings/remotely possible definitions for that would mean totally something else...hundreds, perhaps thousands and how many scriptures would those definitions change to mean something totally unrelated or something that makes no sense...you see Dan, when you carry your arguement forward then it really begins to unravel the whole BoM and translation process, by the very nature of your arguement you literally change the whole BoM.

If I had invoked multiple meanings at random and without cause, you might have a point. Since I haven't, you don't. I've tentatively raised the possibility only on the basis of roughly a score of potentially parallel examples, and only when a problem appeared to need a solution.

Link to comment
Guest Just Curious
Provide a few, and we'll see.

,

Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say "Written," and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used." (Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses," reprinted from Deseret News, 30 Nov. 1881 in Millennial Star, 44 (6 Feb. 1882): 86-87)
Isaac Hale, the father of Emma Hale Smith, stated in an 1834 affidavit: "The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with a stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods."
The first-hand account of Michael Morse, Emma Smith's brother-in-law, was published in an 1879 article in the RLDS publication Saint's Herald: "When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes
Link to comment
It thusly appears Dan that there were several different people with similar accounts of the translation process.  No doubt you probably have seen all of these already I am sure...

I have. And I don't see how they demonstrate your contention that the translation process was an automatic one involving no participation on the part of Joseph Smith other than passive reading. (The fact that Joseph Smith read from a stone -- Mr. Shades's pejorative "magic rock," alienward's sneering "rock in a hat" -- was not in question. The question was whether the process was merely automatic and mechanical, and your quotations contribute nothing toward a resolution of that question. They're irrelevant.) You've already acknowledged that, according to the accounts, he had to be in a proper spiritual state before he could translate, which suggests that the power wasn't solely in the stone, and that the process wasn't merely automatic.

Thank you for making my point so much better than I could have myself.  Your last part of the paragraph says it all  "and only when a problem appeared to need a solution".

Apparently it came as an unexpected shock to you to learn that someone might only propose hypotheses when something unusual arises that requires an explanation, instead of hatching hypotheses for everything at all. In your normal experience, I suppose, people routinely propose hypothetical explanations for things that are already perfectly understood. ("Look, Margaret! A man appears to be pushing that wheelbarrow! But how can this be? What mysterious force moves it? Hmmmmm. Perhaps it has an engine underneath, between the wheels, that supplies its automotive power. Or it may well be that invisible demons are pulling it along.")

I'll let you in on a closely guarded secret: In contemporary science, almost every hypothesis that's been proposed over the past several years has concerned a problem, an area imperfectly understood. There are hypotheses galore regarding issues such as the relationship of mind and brain, the "cause" of the Big Bang, and the means by which life may have emerged from amino acids. But -- and this is surely scandalous -- there has not been a single hypothesis proposed in recent years by a reputable scientist to explain the lengthening of shadows as the sun goes down, the variation of earthly seasons, or the fact that rocks, when released in mid-air, tend to fall downwards rather than to rise. I suspect a cover-up.

Link to comment

All right there boss-man Peterson. You can come back & trash Just Curioes later. Appearently he likes taking a daily beating. But I left a post back at the "Other LDS Message Boards' for you. A little help? The wife is screaming at me to extract myself of this computer. Thanks .

Link to comment
Guest Just Curious
I have. And I don't see how they demonstrate your contention that the translation process was an automatic one involving no participation on the part of Joseph Smith other than passive reading.... ( The question was whether the process was merely automatic and mechanical, and your quotations contribute nothing toward a resolution of that question. They're irrelevant.) You've already acknowledged that, according to the accounts, he had to be in a proper spiritual state before he could translate, which suggests that the power wasn't solely in the stone, and that the process wasn't merely automatic.

Let me rephrase things then maybe I am not being clear.

1) Joseph used a stone where something "similar to parchament appeared with written words, Joseph read those words, they were read back, if correct they disappeared and new words appeard". This is the testimony of more than one eye witness...if you disagree with their testimony then so be it...

2) the words that appeared were either of God or some other unGodly source (the devil?). According to Joseph, D&C 3 --God was not happy with him and threatened to cut off his translation abilities if he would not repent. So we see according D&C 3 that even though God was not happy with Joseph he had not taken away his ability to translate......So tell me.....what part of the BoM is translated incorrectly? Which Books, Chapters, or Verses, or individual words. I am going by what the eyewitnesses said, I am not making anything up....

Apparently it came as an unexpected shock to you to learn that someone might only propose hypotheses when something unusual arises that requires an explanation, instead of hatching hypotheses for everything at all.

Precisely my point Dan. If the BoM says something you like and agree with then you leave it alone and claim it fully correct. If it says something you cannot prove correct then you start searching for any possible explanation. Can't you see how this looks? I really am at a loss that you cannot see ...well to use a term an old friend was fond of using "what's wrong with this picture". It is as if you are cherry picking what to apply which rule to in order to have the outcome you desire. Sorry but I just can't agree that that method is honest, fair and scholarly at all. When you go in trying to find evidence to support a preconcieved notion then that is not objective at all...you see Dan you automatically work from the preconcieved notion that it is 100% correct instead of investigating the evidence objectively and saying, "well perhaps this is wrong" when the evidence supports it, but instead you keep digging for any possible explanation no matter how implausible in order to try to make your position correct.

One of my favorite criticism of some answers I get is that people often say something like...."well it doesn't say such and such DIDN'T happen so it may have". Do you see how ridiculous something like that is.....it is saying in effect "well you can't prove they didn't do it so they must have". We could take that one step further and for example we could say that an alien spaceship came down and aliens lived with the nephites....now of course no one can prove that did not happen and just because it isn't in the BoM doesn't mean it did not happen, so in the flawed analysis one can contend that the whole of time the nephites lived there were space aliens living with them in every village.....when we start to try to invent reasons why we are right we will go with anything out of desperation instead of being objective and forthright..

Link to comment
if you disagree with their testimony then so be it...

I've said that I don't disagree with their testimony. That means that I don't disagree with their testimony. I've pointed out that, while I don't disagree with their testimony, their testimony doesn't deal with the issue I've raised. Thus, although I don't disagree with their testimony, their testimony isn't relevant to the topic of discussion here, which is whether the process was purely automatic and wholly independent of Joseph Smith's mind, or not. Hence, although -- to make it clear -- I don't disagree with their testimony, I don't find their testimony relevant to the question at issue.

Moreover, even if their testimony were relevant, which it is not, only those who actually translated would be in a position to answer this question with real authority. But there is only one person who actually translated. That person is Joseph Smith. However, Joseph Smith said nothing about the matter.

Thus, the one person with relevant authority on the issue has said nothing about the issue, just as those without relevant authority whom you've quoted have said nothing about the issue. I'm not exactly bowled over by the evidence you've provided.

If the BoM says something you like and agree with then you leave it alone and claim it fully correct.  If it says something you cannot prove correct then you start searching for any possible explanation.  Can't you see how this looks?

Certainly. I can easily see that it clashes with na

Link to comment
you leave it alone and claim it fully correct
Evidence for this please. Stating something along the lines that 'I dont' see a problem with it' doesn't mean that one is claiming that it is fully correct, merely that one is not aware of any difficulty with it at that time.

We're talking about unusual things after all. Why should one have a hypothesis about why Nephi uses "I" rather than talking in third person about himself as it is common practice to do so, for example.

You don't have to comment about commonly known, widely practiced things for the very reason they are commonly known and widely practiced.

Perhaps your difficulty is the term "unusual." I would say that Dan is not labeling only those passages seen as problematic by critics as "unusual." I have, after all, heard and read material by him discussing issues that are unusual (at least to him) but not particularly problematic because he finds them interesting and informative (at least I assume that's why he's talking about them). Perhaps one could use the term problematic for them in a noncritical sense of 'we don't really know why this says this' as opposed to 'this is evidence for or against some position'.

It is as if you are cherry picking what to apply which rule to in order to have the outcome you desire.
I think you are misunderstanding how Dan and others approach BoM study. Just like any scholar, research is done in areas that you find interesting. Most don't find common 'non-issue' issues all that interesting. For example in all the discussions about translation methods, has there been any detailed discussion about the type of writing instrument and paper that was used by the transcriber? Is someone 'cherry picking' what to examine just because they choose to ignore an essential, but rather trivial part of the transcription process (essential in the terms that transcription couldnt' have taken place without them)?

In speaking about the translation method employed by JS, there are at least two parts--the external process that can be commented on by observers (which your quotes apply to) and the internal process that can only be commented on by Joseph Smith and which, as Dan has pointed out, is unfortunately missing.

With the scientific method, you start off with a hypothesis you assume is 100% correct. You then determine what method of examination and what type of results you should get if your hypothesis is correct. Then you 'run the experiment'. If your results are spot on, generally you pat yourself on the back and then fine turn your hypothesis until you discover the limits of it.

So objectively speaking, there is nothing wrong with starting out with an assumption that you are 100% correct as long as you don't let it interfere with recognizing when your results don't match your expectations.

...."well it doesn't say such and such DIDN'T happen so it may have". Do you see how ridiculous something like that is.....it is saying in effect "well you can't prove they didn't do it so they must have".
Since when did "may" equal "must"? You are the one jumping to conclusions here. There is nothing wrong with talking in probabilities. Objective people do it all the time. Probabilities inherently include the 'I am wrong' stance after all.
Link to comment
(Sane scientists and scholars don't willingly devote much attention to problems that have already been solved.)
If only for the reason no one is going to pay them for doing so.

Just Curious, How many times does an apple have to drop on someone's head in order for Newton's Laws to be established objectively for you?

Link to comment

Thanks, calmoriah. You're exactly right. My lengthy paper on "Nephi and His Asherah," for example, resulted from my noticing something that struck me as really unusual and odd in 1 Nephi 11 -- the evident equation of the Virgin Mary with a tree. It wasn't a "problem" in the sense that any critic had ever commented on it (so far as I'm aware), but because I thought it called for an explanation. So I provided a possible explanation for it.

That's the way scholarship often works. That's the way science often works. Anomalies cry out for explanation. Curious scholars and scientists try to explain them. There's nothing mysterious, dishonest, weird, or discreditable about it.

Link to comment

Dr. Peterson:

But there is only one person who actually translated. That person is Joseph Smith. However, Joseph Smith said nothing about the matter.

I suppose this depends on your point of view. Joseph does say a little something about it via revelation from God, in D&C 9:7-8. The Lord specifically explains that when Oliver thought that the translation would simply be given to him, without effort on his part to understand it, that this was incorrect. The Lord explains that study is indeed required on the part of the translator.

Personally, in light of D&C 9, I find the notion that Joseph was simply a bystander during the translation indefensible.

Link to comment
Personally, in light of D&C 9, I find the notion that Joseph was simply a bystander during the translation indefensible.

So do I. And you're right to cite Doctrine and Covenants 9.

On another occasion, though, when Hyrum asked Joseph to explain in detail the nature of the translation process, Joseph declined to do so.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...