Does Limited Geography Conflict With The Bom?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I don't know what you mean by that. Certainly you don't mean that if he had made the whole thing up he would have gotten American ethnohistory right, instead of fancifully wrong as he did. "Fancifully wrong" is most consistent with Joseph making the whole thing up, isn't it? Instead, you guys have to do tons of extra work and imagining to make "fancifully wrong" square with Joseph being a prophet, and I'm amused to see how at the base of it you must argue that Joseph suffered from ADD because he couldn't see all the obvious clues you've "found".

My point is if Joseph had written the Book of Mormon himself, I would take his thoughts on the potential geography etc. more seriously than I do knowing he was a translator. I didn't express it as eloquently or accurately as Gardner just did, though my point was the same, and I noticed you didn't respond directly to his point, and invite you to do so now.

He didn't change any views. Yes, he became excited because his hemispheric, BoM-exclusive ethnohistory could easily accomodate central american ruins and anything else he might have heard of. Now, if he'd been thinking about a BoM-limited, open ethnohistory of the Americas (like modern apologists), then he would have said "Yeah, Central America must have to do with the "others" who had already built civilizations here when Lehi came, as spoken of in the plates of Lehi." But he didn't say that. Instead he said, "Cool, that's part of the Book of Mormon too." So he never changed his views, LOAP.

I see his views as adapting to new developments, and I see him as excited when he learned about them.

Since you believe in "translation" (in quotes), which means anything you need it to mean today and something else tomorrow, there will never be a big problem for you.

I wish I knew how it all worked precisely, but I don't. Some people have ventured guesses. I'm not married to any theories. I do know, however, that the book exists, it is there, and that somehow Joseph Smith translated it.

It seems to me "translation" (in quotes), also means anything you need it to mean today and something else tomorrow, depending on how you can use it to ridicule the book, thus there will never be a big problem for you.

[maupayman]

mpauyman:

What evidence could you produce to support the assertion that "LDS read the Book of Mormon for over a hundred years without noticing ..."?

My study of the history of the church reveals that "reading the Book of Mormon" was simply not something that the average member of the church ever did for at least the first 100 years of church history, if not much longer. They don't quote from it, they don't teach from it, they don't talk about it from scholarly points of view.

The Book of Mormon, for the early converts to the church, was a much more a symbol of something than it was anything else. It represented the fact that God had spoken anew. But there is little, if any, evidence that anyone really looked at the text in a serious fashion until the last fifty years or so. In those cases where individuals did undertake a serious study of the book (Matt Roper conducts a survey of them here: Nephi's Neighbors), they tend to reach conclusions similar to those reached today by serious students of the Book of Mormon.

Your statement then, is based entirely upon a mistaken premise. And, as an argument against Brant's well-considered points, it carries little weight.

The simple fact is that the text not only does not exclude the notion of there being "others" -- it can be shown in many instances to support the idea. Nevertheless, critics of the Book of Mormon have shown themselves to be inordinately obdurate when it comes to acknowledging these things. To them, there is only one way the Book of Mormon can be read, and by damn, they will insist that the rest of us read it only that way!

Well Will, I imagine we could both agree that this idea has not been published in church publications until recently?

[maupayman]

We want to make the Urim and Thummim/seerstone into a Star Trek-esque "universal translator" that automatically renders into 19th century English a perfect translation of whatever is written in "Reformed Egyptian" on the plates.

Well, I can't imagine where anyone could get such a silly notion from Will... Oh that's right that's what every first hand witness to the process said happened. I understand how this becomes problematic for a believer of the book, but all the ideas you suggest are purely speculation on your part. Then you roll your eyes and wonder why everyone doesn't buy into your insightful ideas.

[Calm]

I think a good example of how JS wouldn't not have automatically known the physical environment, location, source of the people, etc. is in the example Emma gives of him asking about the walls around Jerusalem. Certainly the process of translation didn't give him full knowledge of their existence and his method of verification seems to me that while he was given factual knowledge, it was certainly not a complete knowledge of the people he was writing about.

It also appears like he believed he could interpret something incorrectly as he looked for verification that the translation was correct from an outside source.

So the question is for me is how much JS was taught and from the descriptions that Lucy Mack Smith gives of the stories he told describing what he had learned, it seems like it was the equivalent of watching a visual tour instead of a full fledged documentary with all the details. He seemed like he was looking for further education about the people from time to time in his later life as well so in no sense does it seem to me he thought of himself as all that knowledgeable, definitely not having any sort of a complete knowledge about the people of the text.

[Brant Gardner]

Oh that's right that's what every first hand witness to the process said happened.

One of the very first questions a historian asks of his/her sources is what that source really knows of the information they report. In the case of the "first hand" witnesses you are referencing, they certainly have the advantage of timeframe, but there isn't a single one of them that really was a "first hand" witness. None of them actually translated. None of them used the intepreters or the seer stone. There is no clear indication that Joseph Smith ever said anything more than the very vague public statements he made.

All the "first hand" witness statements have slightly different forms and tend to come much later than the event. They are remembrances. Those kinds of "witnesses" are subject to communal lore shaping and are probably more indicative of external explanations than they are of actual accurate reports of the method.

[William Schryver]

Well Will, I imagine we could both agree that this idea has not been published in church publications until recently?

Roper catalogues references to a limited geography dating back over a century.

So, no, we don't "agree that this idea has not been published in church publications until recently."

Well, I can't imagine where anyone could get such a silly notion from Will... Oh that's right that's what every first hand witness to the process said happened. I understand how this becomes problematic for a believer of the book, but all the ideas you suggest are purely speculation on your part. Then you roll your eyes and wonder why everyone doesn't buy into your insightful ideas.

There are no "first hand witnesses" to the translation of the Book of Mormon. There was one, Joseph Smith, but he never seems to have told anyone how it worked.

And, in fact, the Book of Mormon is not written in 19th century English. It is the considered opinion of Dr. Skousen that it employs a version of English that dates to Elizabethan times. Of course, we are reduced to speculation whenever we talk about the means/methods by which the BoM translation was effected. However, there are certain new elements that have been introduced into the debate. You seem to be unaware of them. Perhaps you could peruse the FARMS website and read a few articles by Royal Skousen in order to broaden your horizons on this subject.

[maupayman]

One of the very first questions a historian asks of his/her sources is what that source really knows of the information they report. In the case of the "first hand" witnesses you are referencing, they certainly have the advantage of timeframe, but there isn't a single one of them that really was a "first hand" witness. None of them actually translated. None of them used the intepreters or the seer stone. There is no clear indication that Joseph Smith ever said anything more than the very vague public statements he made.

All the "first hand" witness statements have slightly different forms and tend to come much later than the event. They are remembrances. Those kinds of "witnesses" are subject to communal lore shaping and are probably more indicative of external explanations than they are of actual accurate reports of the method.

So where do you think they got the ideas they expressed in their explanations of the process? You think they just made it up on their own? Joseph did not explain these things to them? While they may not be identical in every particular, the many explanations reflect a consistent idea of a tight translation which did not depend on Joseph's knowledge and interpretation. Do you treat the first vision accounts with the same level of scrutiny Brant? Just discard them because they do not all say the same thing?

I'm wondering what you base your interpretations of the process on? You discount everyone who saw it and asked Joseph about it, and then just speculate on what you think makes the most sense. That's fine, just don't be surprised if everyone else doesn't follow along with you.

[maupayman]

Roper catalogues references to a limited geography dating back over a century.

Could you cite some examples relevant to this thread dating back over a century please?

So, no, we don't "agree that this idea has not been published in church publications until recently."

Well, I suppose recent is a relative term Will.

And, in fact, the Book of Mormon is not written in 19th century English. It is the considered opinion of Dr. Skousen that it employs a version of English that dates to Elizabethan times.

That's odd.

[Brant Gardner]

So where do you think they got the ideas they expressed in their explanations of the process?

There is a problem with that question. It supposes that one is able to immediately understand where someone gets their information without any effort at understanding the nature of the data. When dealing with historical data, you accept statements as honest responses, but then you have to examine the quality of the data and the nature of the information they give you.

You think they just made it up on their own? Joseph did not explain these things to them?

That is a very important set of questions. They cannot be answered by simply assuming the answer. If you are going to do historical work, you need to examine the data to answer those questions, not simply assume that you know what the answer must have been.

While they may not be identical in every particular, the many explanations reflect a consistent idea of a tight translation which did not depend on Joseph's knowledge and interpretation.

Understanding that their evidence was not first hand because they didn't actually translate, the question becomes whether there is any evidence that tells us whether their information is correct. The answer to that is complex and probably couldn't have been answered very well before Skousen's work on the manuscripts. However, Skousen documents how the actual manuscripts (which are much, much closer to first hand) contradict their statements. If their statements are demonstrably incorrect, then they do not have first hand information. Then the question becames the source of their second hand information and how the particulars of those statements developed. Both the similarities and differences are instructive.

Do you treat the first vision accounts with the same level of scrutiny Brant? Just discard them because they do not all say the same thing?

The historian never discards (or shouldn't). Differences need to be understood. The major difference between the two cases you are presenting is that the first vision accounts really are first hand. The others are second hand. The processes operating on relating information are different for different types of information. One follows the known behavior of eyewitness accounts. The others follow rules of communal lore.

So the long answer to all of the questions is that one must carefully examine the data and not apply simple assumptions to them.