Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Book of Mormon is a conundrum.


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Have the original D&C revelations (prior to Joseph Smith's subsequent edits) around the time of the book of mormon project (1829) been studied to see if they contain EmodE?

Yes.  Carmack has done that, and the D&C does not exhibit EModE, nor do any of Joseph's personal writings.  Anyone is free to closely examine the handful of early revelations and personal writings of Joseph to see if there are any examples of EModE in them.  If systematic EModE were part of Joseph's spoken dialect, it should be readily apparent.  Same applies to Nathaniel Hawthorne's novels, wherein he places words in the mouth of early Puritans (his own ancestors in Salem, Mass).  Hawthorne, by the way, was the same age as Joseph, and they even spent time in the same place when Joseph was very young (Salem, Mass).

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes.  Carmack has done that, and the D&C does not exhibit EModE, nor do any of Joseph's personal writings.  Anyone is free to closely examine the handful of early revelations and personal writings of Joseph to see if there are any examples of EModE in them.  If systematic EModE were part of Joseph's spoken dialect, it should be readily apparent.  Same applies to Nathaniel Hawthorne's novels, wherein he places words in the mouth of early Puritans (his own ancestors in Salem, Mass).  Hawthorne, by the way, was the same age as Joseph, and they even spent time in the same place when Joseph was very young (Salem, Mass).

Did Mr. Carmack do the comparison with the original D&C revelations from the time the bofm was being dictated to Oliver Cowdery, circa 1829?  Also, where in the interpreter can I find this portion of his work?  Even so, Joseph Smith probably, consciously, used more biblical language when he dictated his D&C revelations as he was claiming they were the very word of God and/or Jesus.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Did Mr. Carmack do the comparison with the original D&C revelations from the time the bofm was being dictated to Oliver Cowdery, circa 1829?  Also, where in the interpreter can I find this portion of his work?  Even so, Joseph Smith probably, consciously, used more biblical language when he dictated his D&C revelations as he was claiming they were the very word of God and/or Jesus.

Carmack (champatsch) has mentioned that on this board, but I can't recall in which paper he went over that fact.  Of course, he would never be so foolish as to use later edited versions of those revelations -- they are readily available in the Joseph Smith Papers online.  EModE is not biblical language, and the KJV does not have the same specific rates of usage common to EModE from around 1540.  Same applies to the BofM.  Naturally, someone who was a normal user of EModE in the mid-16th century would continue to use it throughout his lifetime, which might be around 80 years for the upper classes.  My vocabularly and mode of English expression, for example, is rooted in the 1940s and 50s, and I will continue to use it till the time of my death -- even though a great many new forms and expression have come into common usage.  In addition, I merely reflect the teachers, parents, and books I have read from even earlier than my birth.  The stream of language flows forward constantly, bringing with it old flotsam and jetsam, stopping to form eddies along the way, then continuing on heedless of conservative users.

People in Joseph's time did not consciously use biblical language.  It was second nature to them whenever speaking in a religious voice, say in preaching, praying, or receiving revelations.  Even today, those who pray in an LDS setting usually use the old KJV style of speech, without even being aware of it.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Well, it wouldn't have been in a form conducive to the magic trick you've proposed, so he would have had to find time to write it out, presumably in secret, at the cost of his time and at the risk of someone discovering his very laborious project.  

All he needed to do was paste the pages together end to end and wind them onto a pair of spools. If there were columns he would have had the additional step of cutting. Easy peasy.

19 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

If Joseph stumbled across an ancient text with all the amazing features in the Book of Mormon, if he were able to adapt the text so that it prophesied directly of his life and mission and the three witnesses and of the book's own prominence as a sign of Israel's gathering, if he were able to secretly write out the text before hand, if he were ingenious enough to build such a contraption as you mentioned to aid his deception, if he were able to always place himself in an ideal location while translating, if no one else walked in at just the wrong time, if his constant need to manipulate the said device with one or more hands wasn't detected by Oliver or the other scribes (likely 7 more, I think) who helped out here and there, and if he was able to either deceive or conspire with nearly two dozen people who encountered the plates or other Nephite artifacts, and at least 4 who witnessed the angel Moroni under varying circumstances, and if he and and others were willing to stake their lives and reputations on this deception, and to vigorously reaffirm their testimonies throughout their lives, and risk death, and in Joseph and Hyrum's case ultimately die for their testimonies and seemingly sincere religious convictions, your theory may have a chance of perhaps being within the realm of possible.

I just personally find this multiplication of hypothetical scenarios a lot harder to believe than the standard narrative. 

I've described a repeatable way to accomplish the dictation process. The other issues you bring up also have answers but I'm just not going to go down every rabbit hole you present.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The EModE data seems to suggest that to be the most reasonable approach.  In fact, the seerstone in the hat version would even fit that scenario, provided that stone was a solid state device with an LED screen (which is what most of those who were closest to Joseph in effect claimed).

The biggest mystery is where he got that text.  Who provided it to him?  There had to be a middle man between Joseph and someone back in around 1540.

These elaborate ruses don't comport with the actual descriptions given by those present.  It would  be more likely that Joseph himself was fooled into believing that God was the ultimate source, a pretended angel the middle man.  Joseph and Oliver are more likely victims in a very sophisticated flimflam.  Both seem all too sincere and credulous.  Yet, given the need for very advanced digital electronics, it might be much easier to accept another explanation.  Even quantum entanglement would be more believable. Would make a great episode of The Twilight Zone, with someone from the future returning to interfere with mundane events.  But with a view to what end?  Altering history just enough to prevent a problem down the line?  What sort of problem?

Occam's Razor, anyone?

It's a category error to invoke Occam's Razor while appealing to a supernatural explanation. The supernatural is never the simplest explanation.

And my explanation of the dictation process does comport to the actual descriptions given by those present.

Also, 1540 is far too early. We have the KJB, of course, which automatically bumps the date to 1611. And the theological issues (such as the Arminian response to Calvinism) don't become ripe until about 1620. But even taking the linguistic issues on their own tells us we've got to at least be in the 17th Century. As with a hoard of coins we can't take the average date of the coins to tell us when it was buried. It has to have been buried after the newest coin.

Link to comment

There are two websites that go by the name MormonLeaks; MormonLeaks.io and MormonLeaks.com. The first seems intent on releasing stuff to embarrass the Church. I am not, repeat - am not referring to that site in this post. There is another site that is never referenced in this thread. It took me several hours, but I read the entire site and found it very interesting. It details the content analysis work of Criddle, Uyleman, and Booth. I know nothing about any of them. I am not advocating or defending their work in any way. I simply found it very interesting and am wondering if it has all been debunked?

Here is the link to their website:  https://mormonleaks.com/#text_uv79ezg 

It seems to seek to answer the question oft-asked on this thread: who, if anyone were the middle men? Since no one has mentioned it I assume this work has been discredited. I find it interesting and would like to know your thoughts about it. Under their Methodology, they indicate, "The narrative presented here is a naturalistic perspective that, to the best of our knowledge, is consistent with existing historical and textual evidence. Our aim is to create an account that integrates as much evidence as possible into a narrative with explanatory and predictive power. While we are not aware of errors of fact, we recognize that errors are possible, and we welcome corrections. We also anticipate that new evidence will come to light. Corrections and additional information may require fine-tuning of the narrative or even significant changes. We reserve the right to do so." That sounds fair.  The episode format/style keeps the reader's interest. The content analysis/authorship work seems impressive. Do any of you know these folks? What is their intent/purpose? What think ye all? Thanks.               

 

Edited by Navidad
Link to comment
50 minutes ago, Navidad said:

There are two websites that go by the name MormonLeaks; MormonLeaks.io and MormonLeaks.com. The first seems intent on releasing stuff to embarrass the Church. I am not, repeat - am not referring to that site in this post. There is another site that is never referenced in this thread. It took me several hours, but I read the entire site and found it very interesting. It details the content analysis work of Criddle, Uyleman, and Booth. I know nothing about any of them. I am not advocating or defending their work in any way. I simply found it very interesting and am wondering if it has all been debunked in official LDS circles?

Here is the link to their website:  https://mormonleaks.com/#text_uv79ezg 

It seems to seek to answer the question oft-asked on this thread: who, if anyone were the middle men? Since no one has mentioned it I assume this work has been discredited. I find it interesting and would like to know your thoughts about it. Under their Methodology, they indicate, "The narrative presented here is a naturalistic perspective that, to the best of our knowledge, is consistent with existing historical and textual evidence. Our aim is to create an account that integrates as much evidence as possible into a narrative with explanatory and predictive power. While we are not aware of errors of fact, we recognize that errors are possible, and we welcome corrections. We also anticipate that new evidence will come to light. Corrections and additional information may require fine-tuning of the narrative or even significant changes. We reserve the right to do so." That sounds fair.  The episode format/style keeps the reader's interest. The content analysis/authorship work seems impressive. Do any of you know these folks? What is their intent/purpose? What think ye all? Thanks.               

 

Good thing I clicked on the link, I was about to say that poster Ryan McKnight is over it. Funnily they have nothing to do with it. https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/  I wonder if this website you bring up is piggybacking on the site that Ryan runs in order to get traffic since they both have mormonleak in their title, interesting. Shoot, now I'm going to be listening to even more podcasts, to see what they're all about.  Sorry I couldn't help out with an answer.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Good thing I clicked on the link, I was about to say that poster Ryan McKnight is over it. Funnily they have nothing to do with it. https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/  I wonder if this website you bring up is piggybacking on the site that Ryan runs in order to get traffic since they both have mormonleak in their title, interesting. Shoot, now I'm going to be listening to even more podcasts, to see what they're all about.  Sorry I couldn't help out with an answer.

Ryan McKnight's MormonLeaks came after the MormonLeaks site discussing Book of Mormon origins. There was a small controversy about it a few years back:

"Criddle, of Redwood City, Calif., and two collaborators launched MormonLeaks.com (and bought the domain MormonLeaks.org along with a couple of others) in 2010....[In late 2016], Criddle said, McKnight approached him about buying the domain names, but the Criddle folks declined the offer."

Link to comment
Just now, Rajah Manchou said:

Ryan McKnight's MormonLeaks came after the MormonLeaks site discussing Book of Mormon origins. There was a small controversy about it a few years back:

"Criddle, of Redwood City, Calif., and two collaborators launched MormonLeaks.com (and bought the domain MormonLeaks.org along with a couple of others) in 2010....[In late 2016], Criddle said, McKnight approached him about buying the domain names, but the Criddle folks declined the offer."

Why thanks Rajah, I had no idea!

Link to comment
2 hours ago, JarMan said:

It's a category error to invoke Occam's Razor while appealing to a supernatural explanation. The supernatural is never the simplest explanation.

Ockham's Razor was literally developed while dealing with supernatural entities. His statement was we shouldn't multiply such explanations beyond what scripture or Church authority demands. That related to say medieval angelology and whether there was something common to angels or whether each angel was it's own kind. Ockham had his own view as did most of the major figures. (Unsurprisingly Ockham's was fairly nominalistic) But the main issue was metaphysics multiple beyond what was necessary where necessary was what scripture or the Catholic Church required.

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

All he needed to do was paste the pages together end to end and wind them onto a pair of spools. If there were columns he would have had the additional step of cutting. Easy peasy.

And not get noticed. I confess I find hiding sheets far more plausible than a roll like this.

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Carmack (champatsch) has mentioned that on this board, but I can't recall in which paper he went over that fact.  Of course, he would never be so foolish as to use later edited versions of those revelations -- they are readily available in the Joseph Smith Papers online. 

Just doing a quick search but not reading extensively there's "On Doctrine and Covenants Language and the 1833 Plot of Zion" although I don't think that goes through the early U&T revelations. That's the only one I could find. I'd be interested if there's a paper addressing the early revelations and early English although he touches upon a few elements.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

it has all been debunked in official LDS circles?

What do you mean by "official"?  Most apologetics is done by members on their own, there might be some academic stuff connected to BYU (though I don't remember any...I was wrong, I was thinking it was later than it was and Interpreter)..

Some info on criticism of it here:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/700169259/FAIR-Wordprint-analysis-and-the-Book-of-Mormon.html

Do you want the actual articles/presentation criticizing the analysis?

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1837&context=msr

Gives background:

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/what-can-stylometry-tell-us-about-book-of-mormon-authorship

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

And not get noticed.

Issac Hale said this about what he saw:

"The next day after this happened, I went to the house where Joseph Smith Jr., lived, and where he and Harris were engaged in their translation of the Book. Each of them had a written piece of paper which they were comparing, and some of the words were "my servant seeketh a greater witness, but no greater witness can be given him." There was also something said about "three that were to see the thing" -- meaning I supposed, the Book of Plates, and that "if the three did not go exactly according to the orders, the thing would be taken from them." I enquired whose words they were, and was informed by Joseph or Emma, (I rather think it was the former) that they were the words of Jesus Christ. I told them, that I considered the whole of it a delusion, and advised them to abandon it. The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods!"

Joseph and his scribe Martin were translating the Book of Mormon when Isaac Hale walked into the house to observe. (1) Joseph and his scribe were comparing written words on two pieces of paper, (2) Correct me if I'm wrong, but these words never appear in the Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants, (3) It was confirmed that those words being compared on two different pieces of paper were the words of Jesus Christ.

Why were they comparing words written out on two sheets of paper in front of witnesses? Where did these revealed words go? Does this not confirm that it is possible that the witnesses to the translation process were not always witnessing the dictation of the Book of Mormon?

Edit: the words being compared must be related to D&C 5. However, this does suggest that observers to the process might have thought they were witnessing a translation of the plates when they actually were witnessing revelations that were not related to the Book of Mormon.

Edited by Rajah Manchou
Link to comment
46 minutes ago, Calm said:

What do you mean by "official"?  Most apologetics is done by members on their own, there might be some academic stuff connected to BYU (though I don't remember any...I was wrong, I was thinking it was later than it was and Interpreter)..

Some info on criticism of it here:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/700169259/FAIR-Wordprint-analysis-and-the-Book-of-Mormon.html

Do you want the actual articles/presentation criticizing the analysis?

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1837&context=msr

Gives background:

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/what-can-stylometry-tell-us-about-book-of-mormon-authorship

Hi Calm: I don't know what I meant by "official." I guess I should have said "credible" LDS sources - like all of you . . . err. . . . some of you! Ha! I will look at your links thanks so much. It appears your links are all in response to a study in 2008 by different authors than in the work presented on the website to which I linked. It seems the episodes in this website refer to later research by additional and/or different scholars. Again, I am not advocating, just pointing out the difference in the work on this website from that reviewed in your links. This work clearly acknowledges Joseph Smith as a potential author of the BOM.

Edited by Navidad
Link to comment
57 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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

Just doing a quick search but not reading extensively there's "On Doctrine and Covenants Language and the 1833 Plot of Zion" although I don't think that goes through the early U&T revelations. That's the only one I could find. I'd be interested if there's a paper addressing the early revelations and early English although he touches upon a few elements.

He was far more specific on this board, and perhaps in one of his 2018 speeches.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, JarMan said:

It's a category error to invoke Occam's Razor while appealing to a supernatural explanation. The supernatural is never the simplest explanation.

You entirely missed my point:  I did not invoke an explanation to fit the demands of William of Occam.  I appealed to you or anyone else to apply Occam's Razor to the mystery.  I did not tell what sort of simplest explanation to find.  I made no error.  Again:  Are you able to apply Occam's Razor?  If so, please come forth with the simplest explanation, JarMan.

3 hours ago, JarMan said:

And my explanation of the dictation process does comport to the actual descriptions given by those present.

No it does not.  I have covered it thoroughly in my “Translation of Languages (hermēniea glōssōn I Cor 12:10),” 28pp. (Independence, MO, June 1980), online 2010 at https://www.scribd.com/doc/46307834/Translation-of-Languages .

3 hours ago, JarMan said:

Also, 1540 is far too early. We have the KJB, of course, which automatically bumps the date to 1611. And the theological issues (such as the Arminian response to Calvinism) don't become ripe until about 1620. But even taking the linguistic issues on their own tells us we've got to at least be in the 17th Century. As with a hoard of coins we can't take the average date of the coins to tell us when it was buried. It has to have been buried after the newest coin.

Just because the high rates of EModE characteristic of 1540 show up in the BofM, does not mean that was not put together by a 1540 man or woman at a later date (that person would still exhibit his training in later works).  As I have pointed out repeatedly, language is a living stream, and it will take some flotsam and jetsam from upriver and take it downstream.  In addition, the Printer's Manuscript may feature Oliver actually copying the KJV text directly from an 1828 KJV Bible from the Grandin Bookstore in 1829 (we know his date of purchase and have that Bible), thus overriding differences in the Original Ms.  We may need to look for a scholar or brilliant person who lived from around 1530 to at least 1611.  81 years (well, Dr John Dee lived from 1527 - 1608).  In the meantime, bear in mind that most of the KJV was a rehash of earlier translations, which were still available.  EModE was a living tradition of English usage.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You entirely missed my point:  I did not invoke an explanation to fit the demands of William of Occam.  I appealed to you or anyone else to apply Occam's Razor to the mystery.  I did not tell what sort of simplest explanation to find.  I made no error.  Again:  Are you able to apply Occam's Razor?  If so, please come forth with the simplest explanation, JarMan.

No it does not.  I have covered it thoroughly in my “Translation of Languages (hermēniea glōssōn I Cor 12:10),” 28pp. (Independence, MO, June 1980), online 2010 at https://www.scribd.com/doc/46307834/Translation-of-Languages .

I’m the only one (as far as this thread is concerned) that’s presented a dictation process that 1) Joseph was almost certainly capable of 2) Is repeatable and 3) Fits the eyewitness evidence. In response I’ve gotten verbose blustering and posturing. If you have a substantive criticism I would love to hear it. 

Link to comment
18 hours ago, churchistrue said:

Thanks for answering me, so at least I don't feel crazy that I'm wondering about what this means and no one will answer. Nothing personal against you, but I'd rather not have this sarcastic/critical bent associated with me. I truly am trying to understand the position. For the purpose of understanding not for the purpose of slicing up the theory. And I know, for many it naturally leads to the ludicrous, but I'd like to halt that and hopefully people can feel safe enough to throw out their honest theories here. Because it's super confusing to me, and I'd like to get it right.

 

 

I got ya.  sometimes the best way to get somewhere in these discussions is to push a little and ask more questions.  I, I like you, am very curious what this means to believers and how they would articulate their thoughts.  

Link to comment
18 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It may well be that he saw the letters but they weren't technically on the spectacles or seer stone but were in his eyes but he couldn't discern them when there was light. i.e. other objects distracting his vision. That'd line up somewhat with scrying traditions as well. Again not saying it happened that way, just that we should be careful about options rather than making assumptions. That would also explain why when he became used to the translation he didn't need the spectacles and could use his seer stone or potentially even not use any stone at all.

I'm not sure I see any distinction from what I said.  Glowing words were either in the hat in front of his eyes or in his eyes?  Either way, I think the point applies.  

18 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm usually sympathetic to "as if" critiques, but here I'm not sure I buy it. After all we know Joseph meant by "translation" something broader than our use. (Witness the JST)

I don't know that we know that.  We surely do have to assume that if his claims are to fit into what seems to have happened.  

18 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

All Joseph knew is how to obtain the English words and that was a translation so he was a translator.

That's a rather large assumption too.  We don't know what all Joseph knew.  We certainly do have to assume as you have, if we are to treat his claims as possible.  

18 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Now I personally think the burden of proof is on those who argue the translation was done earlier.

Very much.  I think that's where we're at.  If Joseph used language that he likely wasn't familiar with, then either he got the words from someone who was familiar with the language, or he accomplished that which was unlikely.  The problem is there's no evidence the book existed before Joseph produced it.  Without such evidence, it's either Joseph imagined the book or he got it from some other hidden, unseen, perhaps otherworldly source.  

18 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm very skeptical of that. However even if it was, I don't think that entails Joseph thought the translation was happening as he dictated it.

That doesn't make sense since it was explicitly claimed by Joseph that he was translating and not dictating an already translated text.  

18 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

We honestly don't really know what Joseph thought about it all. (Which is the problem with some of your other questions as well - we don't know if Joseph compared translations the way he may have with Abraham if the apologetic arguments are to be believed)

Of course we dont' know.  THat is the problem I'm describing, as I see it.  

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Issac Hale said this about what he saw:

"The next day after this happened, I went to the house where Joseph Smith Jr., lived, and where he and Harris were engaged in their translation of the Book. Each of them had a written piece of paper which they were comparing, and some of the words were "my servant seeketh a greater witness, but no greater witness can be given him." There was also something said about "three that were to see the thing" -- meaning I supposed, the Book of Plates, and that "if the three did not go exactly according to the orders, the thing would be taken from them." I enquired whose words they were, and was informed by Joseph or Emma, (I rather think it was the former) that they were the words of Jesus Christ. I told them, that I considered the whole of it a delusion, and advised them to abandon it. The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods!"

Joseph and his scribe Martin were translating the Book of Mormon when Isaac Hale walked into the house to observe. (1) Joseph and his scribe were comparing written words on two pieces of paper, (2) Correct me if I'm wrong, but these words never appear in the Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants, (3) It was confirmed that those words being compared on two different pieces of paper were the words of Jesus Christ.

That actually doesn't sound like the Book of Mormon text but D&C 5 which I believe came via the Urim & Thummim. I don't think there'd be any need to fake D&C 5 with hidden sheets. So it sounds more like they were discussing these notes. D&C 5 was given at the request of Harris although the version we have is a copy in Cowdery's hand likely from a month later. The additional reason I think it D&C 5 is that it is unlikely the Book of Mormon would be talking about the Book of Mormon being taken. Note that the JSP also references the above Hale report and thinks Hale is comparing two copies of D&C 5 to ensure they were identical. That was never done with the BoM text. (Although arguably it should have been done - especially given what happened to Harris' work)

Anyway, this doesn't do the work you are having it do, even ignoring Hale is an antagonistic witness.

Edit: missed your comment at the bottom. My bad.

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In addition, the Printer's Manuscript may feature Oliver actually copying the KJV text directly from an 1828 KJV Bible from the Grandin Bookstore in 1829 (we know his date of purchase and have that Bible), thus overriding differences in the Original Ms.  We may need to look for a scholar or brilliant person who lived from around 1530 to at least 1611.  81 years (well, Dr John Dee lived from 1527 - 1608).  In the meantime, bear in mind that most of the KJV was a rehash of earlier translations, which were still available.  EModE was a living tradition of English usage.

Do you have a reference to copying the KJV at Grandin? I assume it's in Skousen's work somewhere. But that's interesting.

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure I see any distinction from what I said.  Glowing words were either in the hat in front of his eyes or in his eyes?  Either way, I think the point applies.  

I think it does matter a great deal whether there was physical writing either on the stone(s) or in front of the stones or that arise in some other fashion into his brain. The analogy would be visual musing (like dreaming but creating visual scenes in ones mind) which can be difficult if you're receiving clear visual stimuli. If (as I suspect) the stone is a focus aid then that matters a great deal. Now from a cognitive science perspective it may still be represented in the parts of the brain mapping visual stimuli just like dreams are. But it does matter a great deal in figuring things out.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

don't know that we know that.  We surely do have to assume that if his claims are to fit into what seems to have happened.

Not quite sure what you're saying here. I think you're arguing that Joseph had a contemporary use of the term "translate" but then expanded it's use only later when working on the JST? Could you clarify that a bit?

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That's a rather large assumption too.  We don't know what all Joseph knew.  We certainly do have to assume as you have, if we are to treat his claims as possible.  

Well we know he couldn't read Egyptian and that he was ignorant enough of the plates to assume it was Egyptian when the characters don't appear to be Egyptian. (At least in the various "character" documents) We know he wasn't using the plates in the translation. So what else is there he knew?

One could argue that he wasn't reading characters at all but had impressions come to mind, but I think Skousen is right that doesn't fit the evidence.

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That doesn't make sense since it was explicitly claimed by Joseph that he was translating and not dictating an already translated text.  

Except that when he and others say he was reading text off the spectacles then that is dictating an already translated text. It implies what he means by translation is using that device. Much like someone not speaking French but using Google Translate to translate a French text might describe it as their translating the document. When we use tools to do something we still consider ourselves doing it in terms of common speech.

 

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:
On 3/20/2019 at 10:13 AM, Ryan Dahle said:

It doesn't seem accurate to assert that "God always uses human to do his work." Certainly he allows us plenty of opportunities to grow and has created a religious organization that helps further facilitate this process. But God does at times intervene in miraculous ways, supplying manna, bread, wine, fish, and yes, sometimes even words, through marvelous means, even through the ministration of angels (see 1 Nephi 1:11-14; Mosiah 4:1).   

God always uses human agents to effect those miracles, including Moses and Jesus as Prophet for the instances you just cited for "manna, bread, wine, fish."  The angels are merely "messengers," the meaning of their name.  Ministering angels are not substitute humans.

I'm not suggesting angels are "substitute humans." I'm just saying that there seem to be instances where God miraculously provides something that potentially could have been provided by human agents. The parameters of what counts as "heavy lifting," as you mentioned previously, seem to be contextual rather than absolute. How much is too much divine intervention? I don't think there is any way to reliably measure that with precision. It probably depends on a multitude of factors in any given situation, including human capacity, narrative symbolism, and the causes and effects (foreknown to God) that might result, etc. 

Take the repeated miracle of Christ multiplying loaves for the multitudes. It seems, under the parameters that you have outlined, that the bread that miraculously multiplied must have been made by humans because, as you said, "God always uses human agents to effect those miracles." So some unidentified human (or humans) at some undisclosed location(s) must have made all the bread (not to mention the fishes--someone, somewhere, must have caught all those fish!) to feed the 5,000 and the 4,000 and the Nephite multitude. Then, through miraculous means, their prepared food was then transferred into the baskets of the disciples who distributed it. Likewise, the wine that Jesus transmuted from water was actually prepared somewhere by some human(s), and then was miraculously transferred into the jars at the wedding feast. Likewise, the translation that Joseph Smith read off to his scribes must have been prepared by some human(s), somewhere, before being miraculously transferred as readable English text in his translation instruments. 

Of course, there is actually no evidence that humans provided any of these items before they were miraculously produced in baskets, jars, and seer stones. And in each case, the logic seems to break down, because there is no reason that humans couldn't also have transferred the said items to the needed locations. Why did God miraculously do all the "heavy lifting" for the disciples instead of just having them go pick up (literally lift) the bread themselves from the human(s) who created it? Of he could have had the humans who created it bring it to them. Or he could have had a third party of humans transfer the load. Of course, it could be suggested that the humans who created the bread were far away and so the transfer of the items to the needed locations would have been impractical. But, surely, God could have prepared for such exigencies and made a way for the humans to do more of the heavy lifting themselves. I mean, he could have stashed the food items several hundred yards away so the disciples would have to at least work up a sweat transferring it to the multitude. The wine could have been transferred over longer distances without spoiling as quickly, so the argument doesn't work as well there. And the argument breaks down further for the prepared English translation. Surely some human somewhere could have been found to take the prepared translation and deposit it with the plates so that there would have been no need for Joseph to miraculously view it through his translation instruments. 

But who knows? Perhaps the "slippery" treasures among Lehi's posterity included meals. An especially large and nefarious conclave of Gadianton robbers were just sitting down to feast on their American version of "loaves and fishes" when all of a sudden the whole meal disappeared.... somewhere. Perhaps some Mediterranean pirates (if there were such things in Jesus' day) woke up one morning to find that their stolen cargo of especially fine wine was gone? Maybe there was a scholar from the late EModE who made it to the Americas, dug up the plates, translated them using esoteric knowledge unavailable today (or, more likely, through some heavy lifting on God's part), and then reburied the plates, died before he could transfer his completed translation back to the location of the plates, which translation was subsequently destroyed, making it impossible for any other human to transfer it to a location where Joseph would find it. Under such circumstances (or those of a similar nature), God perhaps found it necessary to supply translation instruments and make them work through miraculous power so that Joseph could see and dictate the said translation to his scribes. 

I'm being rather cheeky here, of course, but my point is that there are probably too many unknowns to reliably determine what counts as too much divine intervention. Could all of those miracles have been prepared through human agents in ways that the scriptural accounts don't disclose? Sure. But there is no actual scriptural or historical evidence that that was the case. And, in every case, requiring unidentified humans to do the "heavy lifting" would have required further "heavy lifting" by God to transfer their created items to the needed locations (in contrast, it would remove a step of "heavy lifting" if they were miraculously supplied on the spot or perhaps transferred from a heavenly realm--you know, less mortals to deal with there). In other words, no truly analogous scriptural precedent seems to necessitate that the translation was prepared by a human rather than by an angelic being. The general principle that God doesn't intervene more than necessary seems too broad and non-specific to demand such restrictive assumptions (IMO). 

Edited by Ryan Dahle
Link to comment
1 hour ago, JarMan said:

I’m the only one (as far as this thread is concerned) that’s presented a dictation process that 1) Joseph was almost certainly capable of 2) Is repeatable and 3) Fits the eyewitness evidence. In response I’ve gotten verbose blustering and posturing. If you have a substantive criticism I would love to hear it

There is actually no evidence that Joseph was capable of the magic trick you described, there is no way to reliably replicate the circumstances of the translation because it lasted so long, and your theory actually relies upon an absence of eyewitness evidence and even goes against what the eyewitnesses themselves believed about what they saw. 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I'm not suggesting angels are "substitute humans." I'm just saying that there seem to be instances where God miraculously provides something that potentially could have been provided by human agents. The parameters of what counts as "heavy lifting," as you mentioned previously, seem to be contextual rather than absolute. How much is too much divine intervention? I don't think there is any way to reliably measure that with precision. It probably depends on a multitude of factors in any given situation, including human capacity, narrative symbolism, and the causes and effects (foreknown to God) that might result, etc. 

Take the repeated miracle of Christ multiplying loaves for the multitudes. It seems, under the parameters that you have outlined, that the bread that miraculously multiplied must have been made by humans because, as you said, "God always uses human agents to effect those miracles." So some unidentified human (or humans) at some undisclosed location(s) must have made all the bread (not to mention the fishes--someone, somewhere, must have caught all those fish!) to feed the 5,000 and the 4,000 and the Nephite multitude. Then, through miraculous means, their prepared food was then transferred into the baskets of the disciples who distributed it. Likewise, the wine that Jesus transmuted from water was actually prepared somewhere by some human(s), and then was miraculously transferred into the jars at the wedding feast. Likewise, the translation that Joseph Smith read off to his scribes must have been prepared by some human(s), somewhere, before being miraculously transferred as readable English text in his translation instruments. 

Of course, there is actually no evidence that humans provided any of these items before they were miraculously produced in baskets, jars, and seer stones. And in each case, the logic seems to break down, because there is no reason that humans couldn't also have transferred the said items to the needed locations. Why did God miraculously do all the "heavy lifting" for the disciples instead of just having them go pick up (literally lift) the bread themselves from the human(s) who created it? Of course, it could be suggested that the humans who created the bread were far away and so the transfer of the items to the needed locations would have been impractical.

You sure managed to completely misunderstand what I said, Ryan.  I just assumed that you understood that Jesus provided the wine at Cana, the loaves and fishes at the Sermon on the Mount, the direct healing of the blind man.  No one else was involved in those acts of power.  Moses got water from a rock by striking it with his staff, etc.  Nowhere did I ever suggest that some humans baked that bread or made that wine, or caught those fish.  My point was that God did not send an angel to make the wine at Cana.  He had a human (Jesus) do it.  God did not send an angel to provide water from the rock.  He had a human (Moses) do it.  Same for Moses parting the Red Sea, or holding up the Brazen Serpent.  Moses was the agent.  Not an angel.  God did not send an angel to confront the priests of Baal at Carmel.  He had a human (Elijah) do it.  God never sends an angel to perform temple ordinances.  He always has humans (you and me) do them.  The rule is that God uses humans as the direct agents of his will.  Angels are merely messengers.  Why accept Joseph as a prophet, if you don't accept an unnamed prophet as the EModE translator?  A fortiori.  Why do you stubbornly opt for an angel or God to do it -- thus violating standard procedure?

Perhaps manna is an exception.  Yet, even in that case, we see no angelic intercession.  Moses manages the entire affair, and the people gather it each day.

10 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

............................... Maybe there was a scholar from the late EModE who made it to the Americas, dug up the plates, translated them using esoteric knowledge unavailable today (or, more likely, through some heavy lifting on God's part), and then reburied the plates, died before he could transfer his completed translation back to the location of the plates, which translation was subsequently destroyed, making it impossible for any other human to transfer it to a location where Joseph would find it. Under such circumstances (or those of a similar nature), God perhaps found it necessary to supply translation instruments and make them work through miraculous power so that Joseph could see and dictate the said translation to his scribes.  I'm being rather cheeky here, of course, . . ..............

"Cheeky"?  I'll say !!  and even silly.

Joseph did not need the plates to effect the translation/transmission.  He simply read the EModE translation from the surface of his stone, and his scribes copied it down. So why would you invent the need for an EModE man to go to the New World?  For example, Dr John Dee understood how to use a seerstone.  Why would he need the plates in front of him?  Indeed, Dr Dee's Book of Enoch (which he wrote) is in the British Library, as is his Aztec speculum and crystal ball. 

Image result for magical speculum of dr john dee

Link to comment
1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

That actually doesn't sound like the Book of Mormon text but D&C 5 which I believe came via the Urim & Thummim. .........................................

We should refer to either the seerstone or the Nephite interpreters.  There was no Urim & Thummim. That is a later glosse.

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Do you have a reference to copying the KJV at Grandin? I assume it's in Skousen's work somewhere. But that's interesting.

No.  I was referring to the KJV purchased at Grandin's Bookstore by Oliver, and potentially used by him in creating the Printer's MS, thus regularizing the KJV Isaiah texts. The Original and Printer's MSS are the two Manuscripts we have of the BofM.  The former is only about 26% of the whole, the latter complete.

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

.......................Well we know he couldn't read Egyptian and that he was ignorant enough of the plates to assume it was Egyptian when the characters don't appear to be Egyptian. (At least in the various "character" documents) ....................

The "Caractors Document" is clearly Egyptian in nature.  However, you are correct that Joseph could not read Egyptian, unless he was using a revelatory instrument.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, JarMan said:

I’m the only one (as far as this thread is concerned) that’s presented a dictation process that 1) Joseph was almost certainly capable of 2) Is repeatable and 3) Fits the eyewitness evidence. In response I’ve gotten verbose blustering and posturing. If you have a substantive criticism I would love to hear it. 

In the piece I cited, I quote the original docs.  Your theory must comport with those immediate observations (by Emma, Elizabeth Ann Whitmer, Joseph Knight, et al.).  If not, your case fails.

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We should refer to either the seerstone or the Nephite interpreters.  There was no Urim & Thummim. That is a later glosse.

Yeah. My bad. I've tried to refer to the spectacles when talking about the Nephite items. Missed doing so there.

40 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The "Caractors Document" is clearly Egyptian in nature.  However, you are correct that Joseph could not read Egyptian, unless he was using a revelatory instrument.

I confess that's not obvious to me. Most of the characters don't seem to be hieratic. I know you've referred to some comments in the mid 20th century by Egyptologists. However the problem is Alan Gardiner, William C.. Hayes, and John A. Wilson's comments back in 1956. Gardiner said he saw no resemblance. Hayes thought it might be a distorted copy of hieratic script, perhaps mainly on the basis of its resemblance to hieratic numerals but also thought it bore a resemblance to other scripts. Wilson said it wasn't hieratic. So far as I know no faithful scholar with extensive training in Egyptian can relate each character to an hieratic character nor has tried.

I know Jerry Grover claims to have translated the character but I'll confess I'm skeptical and I've not seen people embracing it. 

40 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No.  I was referring to the KJV purchased at Grandin's Bookstore by Oliver, and potentially used by him in creating the Printer's MS, thus regularizing the KJV Isaiah texts. The Original and Printer's MSS are the two Manuscripts we have of the BofM.  The former is only about 26% of the whole, the latter complete.

Ah. OK that makes sense.

(BTW - tried to give links to everything but the site gives me a 403 error when I try to include any link)

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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