Your Book Of Mormon Theory

[The Dude]

My point is that there is a precedent for today's seeming "facts" to become yesterday's fallacies....

I think you mean today's seeming "facts" become tomorrow's fallacies. If so, I would agree, and 1491 makes a strong case for this in the field of american archaeology. BUT when this becomes the basis for wishful thinking that tomorrow's facts will correspond to today's fallacies (well, like the BoM), one commits the fallacy of possible proof.

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

.....

...and in the case of horses in the Americas, there is a trend placing them increasingly in the near past rather than the far. And, there are good reasons to argue (as many people do) that the Paint horses of the western U.S. are the result of a pre-Columbian indigenous breeding stock. Look around and you might very well find some articles about it.

Don't give me a homework assignment, Will. If you are going to say things like this, then please share your sources. Or hoard them, if you like, until you get yourself published.

And what about swords? What about metallurgy? It's no surprise to me that you adhere to a tight translation theory, since that is the chapel mormon way. Internet mormons are more accepting of things we'll call "facts" -- and tend to bend the text to fit them in stead of the other way around. Going back to my first post in this thread, I did say "There is no consensus among apologists." Clearly there is not.

[LifeOnaPlate]

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

Amen to that.

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

Wow. Mr. Science here discredits something on the basis that the experts disagree. So much for science. Unfortunately, your leading experts have different opinions in all things scientific. I guess we'll have to dismiss all of that as bunk as well, eh? Shame.

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

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

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

Jesus Christ, then, was a plagiarist. The Bible is FULL of plagiarism. Your own posts are full of plagiarism.

He did so without attribution? Have you even read the book? Come on.

ONE example, it took me 10 seconds to find it: Jacob in 2 Nephi 6:4

And now, behold, I would speak unto you concerning things which are, and which are to come; wherefore, I will read you the words of Isaiah. And they are the words which my brother has desired that I should speak unto you. And I speak unto you for your sakes, that ye may learn and glorify the name of your God.

If you can't even concede one point, in which you are clearly wrong, in a mere semantical issue like the misuse of the term "plagiarism," what CAN you admit? Are you ever wrong on this board?!

I think you mean today's seeming "facts" become tomorrow's fallacies. If so, I would agree...

actually his original statement can stand; as tomorrows yesterdays are in fact, today, thus, the future would look back at yesterday, seeing the truths of today as "yesterday's fallacies."

[Tchild2]

Wow. Mr. Science here discredits something on the basis that the experts disagree. So much for science. Unfortunately, your leading experts have different opinions in all things scientific. I guess we'll have to dismiss all of that as bunk as well, eh? Shame.

Life on a plate - There is absolutey nothing "scientific" about translation, so there are no "experts" on how translation might work or if it works at all except by subjective interpretation. There isn't even a single scientifically proveable event whereby a person has translated an unknown text "by the power of God". When it comes to the claimed "translation" of Joseph Smith by apologists, all anybody is doing is speculating, "experts" included.

[William Schryver]

The Dude:

I think you mean today's seeming "facts" become tomorrow's fallacies.

No. I said what I meant. Because, come tomorrow, theyâ??ll be fallacies from yesterday.

If so, I would agree, and 1491 makes a strong case for this in the field of american archaeology. BUT when this becomes the basis for wishful thinking that tomorrow's facts will correspond to today's fallacies (well, like the BoM), one commits the fallacy of possible proof.

But itâ??s less a fallacy when itâ??s only being advanced to support a justification for continued patience. And 1491 underscores how often conventional thinking has been overturned in the case of archaeology in the western hemisphere.

Don't give me a homework assignment, Will. If you are going to say things like this, then please share your sources. Or hoard them, if you like, until you get yourself published.

I should start assembling a file on the horse thing. Iâ??ve just noted it several times in articles Iâ??ve read over the years. The horse angle holds special interest for me because what I donâ??t spend on new high-def video cameras, I spend to feed three hungry mouths in the backyard. And Iâ??m not interested in getting myself â??publishedâ? for anything scholarly. Iâ??d rather write a movie script about a good Mormon boy who grows up, goes on a mission, goes to college, reverts to his pot-smoking ways, gets too smart for his britches, and goes to hell in a handbasket after someone pees on his new persian rug.

And what about swords? What about metallurgy? It's no surprise to me that you adhere to a tight translation theory, since that is the chapel mormon way.

No, I adhere to a tight translation theory because Royal Skousen has convinced me there is no alternative. Itâ??s an informed belief. And you should know better by now than to cast the â??chapel mormonâ? blanket over me, of all people. Yes, Iâ??m orthodox in almost every way, but Iâ??m hardly your typical â??chapel Mormonâ? â?? unless you mean that I play a mean chapel organ every Sunday morning. (Which reminds me, I need to choose the hymns for Sunday and send them to the woman who does the ward bulletin!)

Internet mormons are more accepting of things we'll call "facts" -- and tend to bend the text to fit them in stead of the other way around.

But my whole point is that the â??factsâ? have continued to change â?? often quite dramatically! â?? over the course of the past fifty years. Especially in the past twenty years when it comes to American archaeology and anthropology. Yes, the text has often been misread. But the objections have been falling off the tree like so many September apples for quite awhile now. Iâ??m patient enough to wait and see what happens to the rest of them over the course of my lifetime.

Going back to my first post in this thread, I did say "There is no consensus among apologists." Clearly there is not.

Agreed. But then, why should there be?

[Nofear]

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

Since there isn't any "bona fide magic" the answer is clear - it is all trickery. But merely saying so doesn't further dialog very much.

One can say if they want, "I don't believe because the Book of Mormon testifies of its own lack of validity," but that would be an answer to a different question than that posed by the thread. The question at the outset was simply, do people have a theory about how the Book of Mormon was produced? Some examples would be:

1. Joseph Smith was a freakishly brilliant wunderkind
   
2. Joseph Smith was a co-conspirator with [insert option], the real author
   
3. Joseph Smith copied/plagiarized other source [insert option]
   
4. Joseph Smith was inspired by the Adversary
   

If somebody chooses to suggest an option, it would be good to be able to support the option. So, I confess asking people to stick their necks out a bit, to stand up and be counted and defend their belief.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Life on a plate - There is absolutey nothing "scientific" about translation, so there are no "experts" on how translation might work or if it works at all except by subjective interpretation. There isn't even a single scientifically proveable event whereby a person has translated an unknown text "by the power of God". When it comes to the claimed "translation" of Joseph Smith by apologists, all anybody is doing is speculating, "experts" included.

First of all, I believe that even "miracles" are scientifically based and bound by an eternal law whether or not we understand them. That's why they are miracles. we don't understand them.

Second, my point to the Dude is simple, you may have overlooked it. He is saying, in effect, "because the BoM scholars disagree on the BoM, the BoM is therefore discredited.

If we applied that standard to any science we would have to throw everything out. Kapische?

[Jaybear]

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

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

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

You missed the point.

I don't believe JS dictated the BOM from the bottom of his hat, without reference materials, or notes.

The inclusion of the KJV in the BoM is evidence that JS used other source material during the preparation of the manuscript, notwithstanding the statements from the "witnesses" to the contrary. Though, in candor, I have not heard Dan's revelatory theory that explains how the KJV got into the text, without being in the room. Its possible that Dan's theory offers the best and most plausible explanation. In which, I would have to rethink my position.

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't believe JS dictated the BOM from the bottom of his hat, without reference materials, or notes.

If you toss all the actual evidence out, you're free to spin any yarn you like.

Born free, as free as the wind blows

As free as the grass grows

Born free to follow your heart

Live free and beauty surrounds you

The world still astounds you

Each time you look at a star

Stay free, where no walls divide you

You're free as the roaring tide

So there's no need to hide

Born free, and life is worth living

But only worth living

'cause you're born free

(Stay free, where no walls divide you)

You're free as the roaring tide

So there's no need to hide

Born free, and life is worth living

But only worth living

'cause you're born free

[Jaybear]

If you can't even concede one point, in which you are clearly wrong, in a mere semantical issue like the misuse of the term "plagiarism," what CAN you admit? Are you ever wrong on this board?!

actually his original statement can stand; as tomorrows yesterdays are in fact, today, thus, the future would look back at yesterday, seeing the truths of today as "yesterday's fallacies."

I am clearly wrong?

Sorry, but you are clearly wrong.

I did not accuse JS of plagiarizing Isiah. I accused him of plagiarizing the KJV bible.

If you are studying Latin, and your homework assignment is to translate an original Latin text into English, and you copy from an existing translation, and tell you teacher you did the translation yourself, you are guilty of plagiarism.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I am clearly wrong?

Sorry, but you are clearly wrong.

I did not accuse JS of plagiarizing Isiah. I accused him of plagiarizing the KJV bible.

If you are studying Latin, and your homework assignment is to translate an original Latin text into English, and you copy from an existing translation, and tell you teacher you did the translation yourself, you are guilty of plagiarism.

Gee whiz. This guy can't be serious.

[The Dude]

Second, my point to the Dude is simple, you may have overlooked it. He is saying, in effect, "because the BoM scholars disagree on the BoM, the BoM is therefore discredited.

LOP:

You might think I was saying that if I had written something titled: "'In the Hope That Something Will Stick': Changing Explanations for the Book of Mormon," which is actually something written by Dr. Peterson, intending to discredit critics for not having a coherent counterexplanation.

The truth is, and this is what I really think, how the Book of Mormon came to be is a mystery, but not a mystery that requires supernatural explanations. People write books all the time, and to critics, the BoM it is obviously a 19th century creation, reflecting many of the ideas and concerns of Joseph Smith and his contemporary Americans. But we don't know how it came to be. We don't have to know, and not knowing or even agreeing does not discredit us.

Similarly, but not precisely the same, the defenders of the Book of Mormon are not discredited because they cannot agree on the method of translation. There are the tight translation sticklers like cdowis and William Schryver. There are the loose translation proponents like Brant Gardner, who never ever talk about Hebraisms because they are inconsistent with the favored method. I could write an article with the same title as Dr. Peterson's, saying, in effect, what you thought I was saying. But I haven't done that and I don't plan to. It's interesting enough that you don't know how the Book of Mormon came to be any more than we do.

[LifeOnaPlate]

LOP:

You might think I was saying that if I had written something titled: "'In the Hope That Something Will Stick': Changing Explanations for the Book of Mormon," which is actually something written by Dr. Peterson, intending to discredit critics for not having a coherent counterexplanation.

The truth is, and this is what I really think, how the Book of Mormon came to be is a mystery, but not a mystery that requires supernatural explanations. People write books all the time, and to critics, the BoM it is obviously a 19th century creation, reflecting many of the ideas and concerns of Joseph Smith and his contemporary Americans. But we don't know how it came to be. We don't have to know, and not knowing or even agreeing does not discredit us.

Similarly, but not precisely the same, the defenders of the Book of Mormon are not discredited because they cannot agree on the method of translation. There are the tight translation sticklers like cdowis and William Schryver. There are the loose translation proponents like Brant Gardner, who never ever talk about Hebraisms because they are inconsistent with the favored method. I could write an article with the same title as Dr. Peterson's, saying, in effect, what you thought I was saying. But I haven't done that and I don't plan to. It's interesting enough that you don't know how the Book of Mormon came to be any more than we do.

By the gift and power of God, The Dude. I already stated my view on it.

[The Dude]

By the gift and power of God, The Dude. I already stated my view on it.

Oh, it's so easy to have an opinion. Here's mine: By the gift and power of Fraud.

[Matt Andrews]

Gee whiz. This guy can't be serious.

Serious, and correct, I think. The Latin translation example is a valid example of plagiarism.

[cdowis]

I am clearly wrong?

Sorry, but you are clearly wrong.

I did not accuse JS of plagiarizing Isiah. I accused him of plagiarizing the KJV bible.

If you are studying Latin, and your homework assignment is to translate an original Latin text into English, and you copy from an existing translation, and tell you teacher you did the translation yourself, you are guilty of plagiarism.

One simple question: did the New Testament writers plagerize the Old Testament.

To use your analogy, if I am supposed to write a term paper, and give an exact quote from another author, and not give the credit to that author, is that plagerism?

Let us suppose another case. I am given an assignment to write about the legal system in the US, and quote the Constitution of the US, without giving a specific reference, is that plagerism? Or is it possible that the teacher and any intended reader is very aware of the contents of the Constitution, and giving a reference is unnecessary because of the obvious nature of that reference to its readers.

Finally, let us suppose an antimormon gives a really silly and absurd argument, which a child should be able to refute. How much credibility does that antimormon have in his or her future posts?

[Anijen]

I am clearly wrong?

Sorry, but you are clearly wrong.

I did not accuse JS of plagiarizing Isiah. I accused him of plagiarizing the KJV bible.

If you are studying Latin, and your homework assignment is to translate an original Latin text into English, and you copy from an existing translation, and tell you teacher you did the translation yourself, you are guilty of plagiarism.

Jaybear you are wrong in your argument. If you persist with this lame idea then either you do not know the definition of plagiarism, or just to prideful or stubborn to give in. In the BoM it clearly gives the authors name and credit. JS was not taking credit for it when he translated the plates that quoted Isaiah the BoM authors clearly wrote they were quoting Isaiah.

Just for the sake of clarification here is the definition (from wikipedia)

Plagiarism (from Latin plagiare "to kidnap") is the practice of claiming, or implying, original authorship or incorporating material from someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement.

[exmo]

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

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

"JS wrote it" is only the beginning of the dialogue.

First in my little mind is this: Of the eleven original witnesses...didn't all but 3 subsequently leave the church for one reason or another? And weren't the remaining 3 all related to JS in some way?

As for "translating with his face in hat" has been documented many times by multiple witnesses. I find it odd that NOBODY ever saw those plates. Half the time JS was "translating", the "plates" were in a different location all together. Just sounds fishy to me. Was he using his same "seer stone" that he used on many occassions to defraud farmers of monies in exchange for his ability to magically find lost treasures on their land by using the same technique he used to translate the plates?

[Jaybear]

Jaybear you are wrong in your argument.

Plagiarism (from Latin plagiare "to kidnap") is the practice of claiming, or implying, original authorship or incorporating material from someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement.

No I am not wrong.

By the definition you provide, JS incorporated the KJ english translation, into the BOM, without acknowledgment.

Do you not appreciate that the KJV Bible was a creative work?

It really not that complicated. Has the whole world gone stupid?

cdowis: Finally, let us suppose an antimormon gives a really silly and absurd argument, which a child should be able to refute. How much credibility does that antimormon have in his or her future posts?

Why even go there?

[maklelan]

Honestly, I don't know how the BoM was created. Does that mean it couldn't be created? Absolutely not.

Just because I can't do it doesn't mean JS couldn't do it. I also can't write a symphony as good as Bach, or chisel a sculpture as good as Michelangelo. Some people are vastly more talented...so much more talented that we can't even comprehend how they do it. This is why I think "the challenge" for any of us to write something like the BoM is ridiculous.

Meaning we still have work to do as we can comfortably adhere to no conclusion. If we do pick one then we commit the fallacy of appealing to probability, which runs like this:

Possibly P, therefore P.

[Uncle Dale]

Of the eleven original witnesses...didn't all but 3 subsequently leave the church

for one reason or another?

1 --- Oliver Cowdery --- distantly related to Smith --- apostate --- reclaimed late in life --- DIC

2 --- Martin Harris --- not related to Smith --- apostate --- reclaimed late in life --- DIC

3 --- David Whitmer --- not related to Smith --- died apostate

4 --- Hiram Page --- not related to Smith --- died apostate

5 --- Jacob Whitmer --- not related to Smith --- died apostate

6 --- Peter Whitmer --- not related to Smith --- died apostate

7 --- John Whitmer --- not related to Smith --- died apostate

8 --- Christian Whitmer --- not related to Smith --- died apostate

9 --- Joseph Smith, Sr. --- father of Smith --- DIC

10 --- Hyrum Smith --- brother of Smith --- DIC

11 --- Samuel H. Smith --- brother of Smith --- DIC

UD

.

[Anijen]

No I am not wrong.

By the definition you provide, JS incorporated the KJ english translation, into the BOM, without acknowledgment.

Do you not appreciate that the KJV Bible was a creative work?

It really not that complicated. Has the whole world gone stupid?

Why even go there?

no I'm not

yes you are

no I'm not

yes you are

no... "ugh"

By the definition that wikipedia (not I) provided, he (JS) did not plagiarize, he translated a quote which author gave credit to Isaiah a book in the KJV. Joseph said he was translating Nephi, Nephi said he was translating Isaiah, and Isaiah is a book in the KJV. In really simple words there is no plagiarism.

Yes I appreciate the KJV of the Bible and other versions too. It fills me with the words of God.

Has the world gone stupid? No just stubborn, come on there is no plagiarism.

[SolarPowered]

Okay, fine, but then the apologists turn around and say there was a loose translation, where JS had to study it out in his mind, in order to fudge words like "horse" and "sword" that are glaring anachronisms.

How, exactly, are the words "horse" and "sword" "loose" rather than "tight" translations of what was on the Book of Mormon plates?

[Nofear]

The truth is, and this is what I really think, how the Book of Mormon came to be is a mystery, but not a mystery that requires supernatural explanations. â?¦ we don't know how it came to be. We don't have to know, and not knowing or even agreeing does not discredit us.

We could have a thread about "Your Book of Mormon Theory of Translation". I'd find it an interesting read because I haven't studied the issue enough to formulate a reasoned argument. But the thread would assist and spur along such a study on my part.

Likewise, one can say they don't know about how the Book of Mormon came to be via non-supernatural processes but some do attempt to formulate a theory. Hopefully another interlocutor here could post their thoughts and it'd give you some ideas to work with much as a translation theory thread would assist me. (I got one personal message in my inbox, but can't reply until I've made 20 posts.)

Sadly though, nobody has really stepped forward publicly with a substantive claim.

[LifeOnaPlate]

[List, etc.]

UD

Mine reads like this:

1 --- Oliver Cowdery --- never denied testimony of the Book of Mormon

2 --- Martin Harris --- never denied testimony of the Book of Mormon

3 --- David Whitmer --- never denied testimony of the Book of Mormon

4 --- Hiram Page --- never denied testimony of the Book of Mormon

5 --- Jacob Whitmer --- never denied testimony of the Book of Mormon

6 --- Peter Whitmer --- never denied testimony of the Book of Mormon

7 --- John Whitmer --- never denied testimony of the Book of Mormon

8 --- Christian Whitmer --- never denied testimony of the Book of Mormon

9 --- Joseph Smith, Sr. --- never denied testimony of the Book of Mormon

10 --- Hyrum Smith --- never denied testimony of the Book of Mormon

11 --- Samuel H. Smith --- never denied testimony of the Book of Mormon

Of course, there could be a report in some 1841 newspaper where Silas McGee Magillicutty says Martin Harris or someone contradicted their original testimony, and UD might have a copy of the tax return form of Silas, but again, for all intents and purposes, these men never denied it. That was either one heck of a trick, one heck of a conspiracy, or one heck of an actual occurrence.

[SolarPowered]

Mine reads like this:

1 --- Oliver Cowdery --- never denied testimony of the Book of Mormon

2 --- Martin Harris --- never denied testimony of the Book of Mormon

etc.

Or it could even read like this:

1 --- Oliver Cowdery --- Repeatedly affirmed testimony of the Book of Mormon thoughout his life.

2 --- Martin Harris --- Repeatedly affirmed testimony of the Book of Mormon thoughout his life.

3 --- David Whitmer --- Repeatedly affirmed testimony of the Book of Mormon thoughout his life.

4 --- Hiram Page --- Repeatedly affirmed testimony of the Book of Mormon thoughout his life.

5 --- Jacob Whitmer --- Repeatedly affirmed testimony of the Book of Mormon thoughout his life.

6 --- Peter Whitmer --- Repeatedly affirmed testimony of the Book of Mormon thoughout his life.

7 --- John Whitmer --- Repeatedly affirmed testimony of the Book of Mormon thoughout his life.

8 --- Christian Whitmer --- Repeatedly affirmed testimony of the Book of Mormon thoughout his life.

9 --- Joseph Smith, Sr. --- Repeatedly affirmed testimony of the Book of Mormon thoughout his life.

10 --- Hyrum Smith --- Repeatedly affirmed testimony of the Book of Mormon thoughout his life.

11 --- Samuel H. Smith --- Repeatedly affirmed testimony of the Book of Mormon thoughout his life.