Some LDS scholars like to agree with Anti-Mormons

[champatsch]

Why are some LDS scholars quick to agree with anti-Mormon arguments? Here is an example of what I mean.

Brant Gardner, in his 2011 book The Gift and Power, at the beginning of chapter 16, in a section on translation and grammatical structure, quotes a paragraph by M. T. Lamb, from his 1887 book titled The Golden Bible. Lamb didn't take the text of the Book of Mormon seriously, and the tone is mocking throughout. It is not a serious study, one full of errors in its grammatical criticisms. But Gardner doesn't tell the reader any of that. He tacitly agrees with Lamb's comments, using them as a springboard into making a few points in this short section. On the following page, page 184, he cites Skousen's Analysis of Textual Variants, as part of a critique of tenses employed in 1 Nephi 19:13. Gardner silently opposes Skousen's interpretation, not letting the reader know. In fine, Gardner agrees with Lamb, who wasn't a grammarian and scorns the text, and disagrees with Skousen, who is a grammarian and respects the text.

The question I'm wondering about is why do we see this tendency among certain LDS scholars, to uncritically agree with anti-Mormon treatments of things? Some have probably seen this in other domains of scholarship.

[HappyJackWagon]

The simple answer may be that sometimes the "anti-Mormons" have valid points and that stripping away the religious, devotional aspect of the reader's relationship with the text reveals legitimate problems. It would seem intellectually lazy for a scholar to agree with every "faithful" interpretation of the topic and content.

[Calm]

"why do we see this tendency among certain LDS scholars, to uncritically agree with anti-Mormon treatments of things?"

Are you suggesting Brant Gardner makes a habit of uncritically accepting anti-Mormon arguments?  Given what I have seen over the past decade and more of his work, I find that highly unlikely.  He is much more likely to judge each argument on its own value within the academic methodological approach without favoring an argument based on the person's beliefs.  It is his critical evaluation of claims that leads him to accept an argument.

Edited June 6, 2017 by Calm

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, champatsch said:

Why are some LDS scholars quick to agree with anti-Mormon arguments? Here is an example of what I mean.

Brant Gardner, in his 2011 book The Gift and Power, at the beginning of chapter 16, in a section on translation and grammatical structure, quotes a paragraph by M. T. Lamb, from his 1887 book titled The Golden Bible. Lamb didn't take the text of the Book of Mormon seriously, and the tone is mocking throughout. It is not a serious study, one full of errors in its grammatical criticisms. But Gardner doesn't tell the reader any of that. He tacitly agrees with Lamb's comments, using them as a springboard into making a few points in this short section. On the following page, page 184, he cites Skousen's Analysis of Textual Variants, as part of a critique of tenses employed in 1 Nephi 19:13. Gardner silently opposes Skousen's interpretation, not letting the reader know. In fine, Gardner agrees with Lamb, who wasn't a grammarian and scorns the text, and disagrees with Skousen, who is a grammarian and respects the text.

The question I'm wondering about is why do we see this tendency among certain LDS scholars, to uncritically agree with anti-Mormon treatments of things? Some have probably seen this in other domains of scholarship.

Brant frequents this board so would probably be the best to address why he did something. 

My guess is he didn't agree with Skousen's approach.  Maybe he saw something broader happening in the text that didn't agree with a strict grammarian interpretation.

My personal belief is that questions of interpretation are most reliably left to the Spirit rather than a scholarly approach, so I am not going to comment further. As a broad observation tho, I disagree with a MesoAmerican setting for the BoM altogether, but I believe Brant still makes many useful observations.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, champatsch said:

Why are some LDS scholars quick to agree with anti-Mormon arguments? Here is an example of what I mean.

One, I'm not sure they are being quick. Two, if someone makes a compelling argument one should deal with it. Three, academic norms require referencing your sources. And people can make good arguments even if the overall presentation is rubbish.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, champatsch said:

Why are some LDS scholars quick to agree with anti-Mormon arguments? Here is an example of what I mean.

Brant Gardner, in his 2011 book The Gift and Power, at the beginning of chapter 16, in a section on translation and grammatical structure, quotes a paragraph by M. T. Lamb, from his 1887 book titled The Golden Bible. Lamb didn't take the text of the Book of Mormon seriously, and the tone is mocking throughout. It is not a serious study, one full of errors in its grammatical criticisms. But Gardner doesn't tell the reader any of that. He tacitly agrees with Lamb's comments, using them as a springboard into making a few points in this short section. On the following page, page 184, he cites Skousen's Analysis of Textual Variants, as part of a critique of tenses employed in 1 Nephi 19:13. Gardner silently opposes Skousen's interpretation, not letting the reader know. In fine, Gardner agrees with Lamb, who wasn't a grammarian and scorns the text, and disagrees with Skousen, who is a grammarian and respects the text.

The question I'm wondering about is why do we see this tendency among certain LDS scholars, to uncritically agree with anti-Mormon treatments of things? Some have probably seen this in other domains of scholarship.

I think that you have this all wrong, Stanford.  In the comments you cite from his 2011 book, my friend Brant was merely demonstrating that both anti-Mormons and faithful Mormons sometimes agree -- in this case on the apparently literal nature of the Book of Mormon translation -- and Brant made Lamb's anti-Mormon perspective quite clear by listing his clerical title (Reverend), followed up within footnote 1 for that page by specific comment from then graduate student Jeffrey Holland that Lamb was an opponent of the LDS Church.  No one has been bamboozled by Brant's discussion, though, of course, this is part of a conversation several of us were having long before your brilliant series of articles on Early Modern English and the BofM came along to offer a new perspective.  Citing Royal's ATV is not an example of silent scorn, even though he does (at least in that book) not share Royal's perspective on the BofM translation -- a fact which several of us have shared until confronted more recently with the hard evidence which you have uncovered.

I also like to cite Lamb in my own writings, since it proves that anti-Mormons have been making many of the same false claims now for over a century.  Many of their superficial observations are even correct, but taken out of context.

[Brant Gardner]

7 hours ago, champatsch said:

Why are some LDS scholars quick to agree with anti-Mormon arguments? Here is an example of what I mean.

Brant Gardner, in his 2011 book The Gift and Power, at the beginning of chapter 16, in a section on translation and grammatical structure, quotes a paragraph by M. T. Lamb, from his 1887 book titled The Golden Bible. Lamb didn't take the text of the Book of Mormon seriously, and the tone is mocking throughout. It is not a serious study, one full of errors in its grammatical criticisms. But Gardner doesn't tell the reader any of that. He tacitly agrees with Lamb's comments, using them as a springboard into making a few points in this short section. On the following page, page 184, he cites Skousen's Analysis of Textual Variants, as part of a critique of tenses employed in 1 Nephi 19:13. Gardner silently opposes Skousen's interpretation, not letting the reader know. In fine, Gardner agrees with Lamb, who wasn't a grammarian and scorns the text, and disagrees with Skousen, who is a grammarian and respects the text.

The question I'm wondering about is why do we see this tendency among certain LDS scholars, to uncritically agree with anti-Mormon treatments of things? Some have probably seen this in other domains of scholarship.

First, thank you for reading the book.

For those who have to look it up (I had to), the quotation from Lamb says that if there are grammatical errors, they cannot be due to Joseph, but to a different person/mechanism. It is very true that Lamb was very anti-Mormon. However, his comment was perceptive, and perhaps prescient. You and Skousen are making that exact argument. If there are "errors" in grammar, they are not due to Joseph, but (in your analysis) to an unknown earlier translator (for whom they were not errors, but simply features of that time's development of the English language).

For the record, I am positive that both you and Skousen are faithful scholars, and the fact that you agree with something an anti-Mormon said isn't even noteworthy.

 

[The Nehor]

I came here all ready to burn some heretics and, once again, false alarm. Leaving disappointed.

[champatsch]

It's good to get your comments on this, Brant, so you can clarify some things for me.  Also Bob, thanks.

And I can see that this is a good opportunity for me to clarify some things.

First, Brant, no, I don't agree with what this anti-Mormon wrote about Book of Mormon language, either on page 242, or elsewhere. I appreciated that last, deft sentence of yours -- you had every right to make it under the circumstances -- but to me it's inaccurate.

Second, Royal and I don't posit an unknown earlier translator. That is your position of Royal's position, but that characterization is wrong. If there was one translator, which fact is unknown at present, it was the Lord. Otherwise, it was the Lord directing the translation, somehow. So, of course the Lord would not be an unknown translator. And this position is clear in ATV, Jacob 6:13, where Royal originally wrote, more than 10 years ago: "And the actual translator of the Book of Mormon—the Lord himself or his translation committee—", This is not in ATV2. I do think you are familiar with this, so it is clearly inaccurate to write of an "unknown earlier translator". Suppose there were multiple translators. Yes, they would be unknown without specific revelation, but the Lord would have directed them. But how and when it was accomplished is beyond us to know without specific revelation on the matter.

As I read back through Lamb's 1887 book, I find that he is sarcastic in several parts of it. Consider his pointed mocking of Book of Mormon language found between pages 50 and 59. In the quote you reference, Brant, he is considering David Whitmer's perspective of the dictation and being sarcastic of that perspective. Lamb wasn't being sincere generally, and not in this particular discussion. This of course makes the quote worthy of a critical appraisal and not a good one to base a serious point about Book of Mormon language and translation on without a clarifying discussion. Lamb does believe that the "sentences are awkwardly expressed, or grammatically incorrect, or contain useless verbiage, unnecessary repetitions". But he thinks it's Joseph doing it on his own, without any input from a higher power. You and I, of course, acknowledge the Lord's hand in the text.

Then, on the following page, in addressing the nature of Book of Mormon translation, you disagree with Skousen's treatment and reading, but you don't discuss why your reading of the textual transmission is correct, and why his is incorrect. A short discussion is called for there since you are making an important point about Book of Mormon translation based on another possible reading. Most readers probably assume you and Skousen are on the same page with the reading, given the bare citation and a lack of an indication to the contrary.

Bob, I didn't think citing ATV was a case of silent scorn by Brant. It's just that his adopting a different interpretation calls for a discussion since he used the reading to make his point that Joseph only received ideas not words. If you look at the larger context of Lamb's writing, I think you will get, as I do, that he was not actually addressing the "apparently literal nature of the Book of Mormon translation". He was just ridiculing what dictation witnesses said and the language of the text. I don't think he was concerned with the nature of the translation.

[Brant Gardner]

2 hours ago, champatsch said:

And I can see that this is a good opportunity for me to clarify some things.

Very helpful, thank you.

Quote

Second, Royal and I don't posit an unknown earlier translator. That is your position of Royal's position, but that characterization is wrong. If there was one translator, which fact is unknown at present, it was the Lord. Otherwise, it was the Lord directing the translation, somehow. So, of course the Lord would not be an unknown translator. And this position is clear in ATV, Jacob 6:13, where Royal originally wrote, more than 10 years ago: "And the actual translator of the Book of Mormon—the Lord himself or his translation committee—", This is not in ATV2. I do think you are familiar with this, so it is clearly inaccurate to write of an "unknown earlier translator". Suppose there were multiple translators. Yes, they would be unknown without specific revelation, but the Lord would have directed them. But how and when it was accomplished is beyond us to know without specific revelation on the matter.

Interesting point. In some ways, we even agree on the fact that the Lord had to have been involved. Joseph had no way to create a secular translation. No matter how it occurred, the Lord was behind it. The question is the mechanism. When we get to "the Lord himself or his translation committee," we are left with a mysterious mystery. There is comfort in emphasizing the otherness of the translation, but it doesn't really advance the question. Whoever translated used elements of EME. I can see Joseph doing that, if his dialect preserved them. I can see the Lord doing it only because, by definition, the Lord could. Why He would is inexplicable. Beyond issues of grammar, the way the translation clearly favors western cultural definitions over what New World culture would have been, is difficult to understand with the Lord being the translator (and those problems don't matter where in the New World you place the text).

I accept that I have misstated your position. Unfortunately, the more accurate statement doesn't resolve anything. Virtually every question about the nature of the translation remains, but is simply moved back one actor. Did the Lord or his committee translate word for word, or was it a functional translation? I suggest the evidence for translation still suggests that most had to be functional. The question of who and when is not the same as how. I seem to remember that you even stated that Joseph could have a literal reading of a functional translation. What that tells me, is that if we are to answer what kind of translation the text is, we have to look at evidence beyond trying to discern who. I believe the evidence points to functionalist translation--regardless of who is posited as the translator.

Quote

Then, on the following page, in addressing the nature of Book of Mormon translation, you disagree with Skousen's treatment and reading, but you don't discuss why your reading of the textual transmission is correct, and why his is incorrect.

My apologies, but your references to my book have become a bit garbled. The page number cited isn't in the section of the book where I was discussing Skousen's proposals for translation, and my reasons for disagreement (see pp. 152-156). Of course Skousen's work demands an appropriate summary--and a discussion of my reasons for disagreement. I agree that it would be irresponsible to ignore his ideas, even though I might disagree with some of his conclusions. I hope you have also noticed that I often cite him favorably, and as an important authority.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, champatsch said:

................................................................

................................................................ Lamb does believe that the "sentences are awkwardly expressed, or grammatically incorrect, or contain useless verbiage, unnecessary repetitions". But he thinks it's Joseph doing it on his own, without any input from a higher power. You and I, of course, acknowledge the Lord's hand in the text.

Many of us began proposing decades ago that any "poor" grammar could be attributed to Joseph, who merely received ideas from the Lord via his seer stone (in a biofeedback loop).  Rev Lamb simply pointed out the obvious.  And you yourself have bought into that same narrative by demonstrating that the seemingly "poor" BofM grammar was actually good grammar in EME.  That is both surprising and disconcerting, because it still leaves us wondering who actually did the "translation."  If, for example, it was Dr John Dee, we still have to ask what form his "gift and power of God" may have taken, i.e., did he use his Aztec seer stone (now in the British Museum)?

Quote

.....................................................

Bob, I didn't think citing ATV was a case of silent scorn by Brant. It's just that his adopting a different interpretation calls for a discussion since he used the reading to make his point that Joseph only received ideas not words. If you look at the larger context of Lamb's writing, I think you will get, as I do, that he was not actually addressing the "apparently literal nature of the Book of Mormon translation". He was just ridiculing what dictation witnesses said and the language of the text. I don't think he was concerned with the nature of the translation.

Of course, the anti-Mormons love to ridicule, but turnabout is fair play, and it is always helpful to turn their own shallow and naive observations against them.  They often make silly claims against the BofM which they would never make against the Bible, and that hypocrisy is their undoing.  This is just another instance of that phenomenon, as your own work has so clearly demonstrated.

Edited June 7, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Alan]

19 hours ago, champatsch said:

Why are some LDS scholars quick to agree with anti-Mormon arguments? Here is an example of what I mean.

Brant Gardner, in his 2011 book The Gift and Power, at the beginning of chapter 16, in a section on translation and grammatical structure, quotes a paragraph by M. T. Lamb, from his 1887 book titled The Golden Bible. Lamb didn't take the text of the Book of Mormon seriously, and the tone is mocking throughout. It is not a serious study, one full of errors in its grammatical criticisms. But Gardner doesn't tell the reader any of that. He tacitly agrees with Lamb's comments, using them as a springboard into making a few points in this short section. On the following page, page 184, he cites Skousen's Analysis of Textual Variants, as part of a critique of tenses employed in 1 Nephi 19:13. Gardner silently opposes Skousen's interpretation, not letting the reader know. In fine, Gardner agrees with Lamb, who wasn't a grammarian and scorns the text, and disagrees with Skousen, who is a grammarian and respects the text.

The question I'm wondering about is why do we see this tendency among certain LDS scholars, to uncritically agree with anti-Mormon treatments of things? Some have probably seen this in other domains of scholarship.

Wolves is sheep's clothing.

[drums12]

5 hours ago, Alan said:

Wolves is sheep's clothing.

Really?  I gather you know little  of Brant Gardner's significant contributions to defending the Book of Mormon with scholarship rather than polemic.

Edited June 7, 2017 by drums12

[probablyHagoth7]

On 6/6/2017 at 7:04 AM, champatsch said:

Why are some LDS scholars quick to agree with anti-Mormon arguments?

Quick to judgment or quick to seek agreement? Is critical or noncritical the preferred stance?

One way to end controversy in any discussion is to simply acknowledge that one's adversary has a valid point. (You for example, have a valid concern: Who's on the Lord's side who?)

That acknowledgement of another person's valid point/concern is sometimes sufficient to give us insight into their broader concern/complaint, allowing us to gently transform the point of their sword into the edge of a plowshare....for the advancement of the kingdom. A peaceful way to defuse, disarm, resolve, and heal the genuine concerns/hurts of those who once walked among us. Those who we may have inadvertently harmed.

Last I checked, agreeing with one's adversary quickly is something we're counseled to do...

Fair 'nuf?

Edited June 7, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[probablyHagoth7]

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/31.34-36?lang=eng#p33

[probablyHagoth7]

https://www.google.com/search?q=ploughshare+sword&oq=ploughshare+sword&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0l2.2788j0j4&client=tablet-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=rmSPYcfog_dkGM:

 

[probablyHagoth7]

Which then raises the question, if we endorse or support a valid teaching of a person or people who teach things contrary to the church, is one's recommend thereby in jeopardy?

Contents may settle during shipment....your local results may vary. 

And if so, is it worth the cost? Count it up, and decide each person for themselves.

Edited June 7, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[hagoth7]

On 6/6/2017 at 7:04 AM, champatsch said:

...It is not a serious study, one full of errors in its grammatical criticisms....agrees with Lamb, who wasn't a grammarian and scorns the text, and disagrees with Skousen, who is a grammarian and respects the text.

1. May we please agree that expertise in understanding/use of grammer isn't what qualifies a point as being valid/serious?

2. Some may be handicapped in the area of grammer, or spelling, or even basic courtesy. Doesn't mean we shouldn't carefully consider/acknowledge their main points/concerns. Such studies/expressions *are* serious....if we're gonna be serious about taking others seriously. I'm guessing that's part of being longsuffering...and bearing (with) one another's burdens.

3. Some may even be *intentionally* violating rules of grammar or spelling or academic standards or basic courtesy for very specific reasons. Putting up their guard to temporarily keep certain types at bay, if you will.

4. As to the mocking tone, isn't the best way to remove the mocking finger to first withdraw our own? Mocks and taunts generally come from those who have first felt slighted themselves.

5. In times past, kings went in disguise among their people, and valiant scouts quietly entered the camp of the supposed enemy, to better understand their nature/intent. We should do likewise...to better serve/defuse their needs.

6. We should be kind to those who are hurting and in need, our supposed enemies, and may thereby initially entertain angels (messengers) unaware...

7. As to allowing the supposed enemy's argument to advance, Nephites once allowed their supposed enemy (their brethren) to advance into the very heart of their lands...and then surrounded them at the appropriate time...with an offer of reconciliation/peace. We can surrender the unimportant battles if we really wish to "win" the war (end the conflict).   

/soapbox

Edited June 7, 2017 by hagoth7

[champatsch]

1 hour ago, hagoth7 said:

1. May we please agree that expertise in understanding/use of grammer isn't what qualifies a point as being valid/serious?

A few points on this.

Of course grammar understanding isn't what qualifies something as being serious generally.  But Lamb was making grammatical points, so he needed to do some research in that regard. He was mainly interested in heaping scorn.

There are obvious errors that Lamb made in ridiculing the Book of Mormon and its language. He was being sarcastic generally, including in the lead-up to this quote. It would have been good for a problem or two of his to have been pointed out by the author quoting him. It would also have been helpful to alert the reader to the context. And how about using Lamb's quote to make the following point:

Quote

Lamb recognized that positing literalist equivalence between the plate text and the English translation leaves us fumbling with certain problems in the English translation.

Lamb believed it was all made up, that there was no relationship between the plate text and the English translation. He pointed out "problems" where there weren't any, more than once.

Edited June 7, 2017 by champatsch

[hagoth7]

52 minutes ago, champatsch said:

Lamb believed it was all made up, that there was no relationship between the plate text and the English translation. He pointed out "problems" where there weren't any, more than once.

Are you saying you would feel better, more at ease, if others had taken time to point out mountain/molehill issues in Lamb's approach? To notify others of Lamb's sarcastic/mocking content that you deem unsupported?  

If you see a genuine call/need for that, perhaps you voluntold yourself.  ??

:0)

Edited June 7, 2017 by hagoth7

[champatsch]

The general reader doesn't have my background, and can easily come to a number of erroneous conclusions because of the bare quotation of Lamb.

I find the use of the quote quite confusing indeed, since Lamb saw no connection between the plate script and the English text.

Quote

If the sentences are awkwardly expressed, or grammatically incorrect, or contain useless verbiage, unneccessary repetitions, or have errors of doctrine, or blunders of any kind, it is not at all the fault of Mr. Smith or Mr. Cowdry; it must be charged to the Urim and Thummim, or the angel that works it, or to the original writing. These earnest men have only to announce and write down what the spectacles record. /sarc

Lamb gave Whitmer's view that there was a strong connection between the content of the plates and the English translation. Lamb was here indirectly criticizing what he viewed as a fake rendering, with the locally unstated point (stated elsewhere) being that Whitmer and others were fools to think there was any connection.

Lamb was very critical of BofM language earlier in the book, and overly critical at times. That he was overly critical is discoverable even by a non-specialist today, so that Gardner could have mentioned a few of the errors that Lamb made earlier in his book. OK. Let's say it wasn't Brant's purpose to mention it. But why use this sarcastic, loaded quote? Why not use the plain criticisms of B. H. Roberts?  Is there a tendency for some LDS scholars to go out of their way to treat highly suspect anti-Mormon criticisms as accurate?

In the case of language, previous criticisms can often be shown to be inaccurate by examples taken from databases. And some of Lamb's criticisms were capable of being exposed as inaccurate by nonspecialists as early as 1928, with the publication of the full OED.  So these are not things I "deem unsupported". It's the OED and the vast textual record of English that show many grammatical criticisms like Lamb's to be unsupported. Many people could show various criticisms to be inaccurate with a little work.  And precisely searchable digital databases now reveal that virtually all of his criticisms are unfounded.

[hagoth7]

31 minutes ago, champatsch said:

The general reader doesn't have my background, and can easily come to a number of erroneous conclusions...

Please share - what background?

31 minutes ago, champatsch said:

So these are not things I "deem unsupported"....And precisely searchable digital databases now reveal that virtually all of his criticisms are unfounded.

I was unclear. Wasn't saying that *your* perspective was unsupported. Was instead referring to your suggestion that Lamb's assertions lacked support.

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by hagoth7

[mfbukowski]

Nevermind 

Edited June 8, 2017 by mfbukowski

[probablyHagoth7]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Nevermind 

I actually read and was considering your original comment before it was modified.  

Would have preferred to discuss it. 

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

I actually read and was considering your original comment before it was modified.  

Would have preferred to discuss it. 

It's odd because I had a conversation with someone who is quite influential in "Mormon inteligencia" today, and she was bemoaning the same issue. We can discuss it if you like. The issue is that since the shake-up in the Maxwell Institute, apologetics is considered a dirty word and scholarship now defines itself as being impartial Mormon studies.

If one is to be considered a genuine scholar nowadays one must not do apologetics. The reason for that is non-member Scholars do not take Mormon Scholars seriously because they represent the Mormon position. Non-member Scholars of course do not consider the Book of Mormon to be historical therefore if you want to be a scholar you also must at least take the position that the Book of Mormon is not historical or at least cultured couch your discussion in terms which leaves the question of historicity out of the equation.

On the other hand Mormon Academia wants to be taken seriously. They don't want BYU to look like a parochial school, but to be taken seriously as an academic center. So the upshot is that Mormon Scholars can either be considered seriously by other Scholars by not advocating the Mormon position or they can damage their academic reputation by taking the standard Mormon line.

To sit at the cool table with the guys from Harvard and Yale you can't be a true blue Mormon. I was contacted a few years ago by a very well-known Mormon scholar who asked me to delete vast quotes that I had made of some of his posts because he was deleting his apologetic posts. Of course he will remain nameless.

So long story short that's why serious academics take on false names to blog on this board, and you have seen a dearth of real Mormon Scholars posting here anymore. Please excuse odd spelling and punctuation as this was dictated.

Edited June 9, 2017 by mfbukowski