Using God to Short Circuit Evidence

[J Green]

We did, and I hope yours was nice as well.

My reading of Eisenman is limited to his dead sea scroll literature which, by dint of the point he is attempting to make, centered around the time of Christ. The book you cited, James the Brother of Jesus, must be more expansive. Even still, I have a hard time seeing him as suggesting anything that would validate a Christian view back to first temple times given the nature of what I have read. But I'll have to trust your assessment until I read it myself. I would certainly agree his views would be in the minority on almost everything, though they are intriguing and have influenced how I read much of the material in the New Testament and apocryphal writings.

I would find any argument interesting that deals with first temple traditions, and even more so one that claims an extension back to Abraham/Adam as the biblical accounts of these time periods are not broadly accepted as historical. Certainly there is much debate on the literal existence of Abraham let alone Adam, and to see Eisenman make such an extension seems...difficult to believe for me.

I should add that what I have read of him does not create a "Christian" view of Christianity with Christ being a divine personage. More clearly, his writings I have read paint the picture of a theology wholly engaged with the Law and I would think any extension he makes back to First Temple Judaism would be a further extension of this view. If he extends traditions that support baptism, etc., back to the First Temple it seems his progression would be more to show these later practices were part of a fundamentalist practice of Judaism by these zealous 1st Century groups. Or so I would think given what I have read.

You're assessment is fairly accurate, Honorentheos. Eisenmnan does expand his thoughts in JBJ, and even more so in The New Testament Code. And he would definitely see these issues in a non-Christian context. He would object very strongly, for example, to the uber-Christian context of baptisms in the BoM and PGP. But again, that would be to enlarge the debate. (It's one thing to say there were no baptisms in the OT and quite another to say that there were but they just weren't Christian in nature.) JeffM's point is that NT ideas aren't found in First Temple Judaism. Eisenman would say they are but that they are Jewish in Origin and Jewish in their final Jamesian expression (James as High Priest in the Temple), with serious editing of the NT to change some of this material. Then you have those who feel they are Jewish in Origin (Margaret Barker, for example) and Christian in their final expression but that some of the OT was edited to remove this material. But they would both agree that many of these issues go back a ways within different sects of Judaism. (See Barker's The Great High Priest where she quotes Eisenman several times on these issues.) My argument is fairly limited in scope: Many of the ideas JeffM is keying on are found in strands of Judaism that date back to the First Temple. The real area of focus should be why they are articulated in such a KJV/NT Christian context in the BoM. Is this an artifact of translation, a result of foolish copying, or simply the result of a straight-forward literal translation of what was on the plates? Or is it something else entirely? No matter your preference, I don't think you can simply claim that we don't even have to consider what part the translation played in this. Make sense?

[JeffM]

JeffM,

I'm fairly disappointed with this response. It's rather shallow and is fairly dated academically.

1. NT Themes from Older Sources

You're stuck in the older paradigm that characterized the landscape of Judaism and Christianity before the modern era of the Cairo Genizah, Qumran corpus, Nag Hammadi, Ras Shamrah, and other discoveries. And this older paradigm is the one that Jacob Neusner tells us doesn't work. Current research is trending toward linking NT phrasing ideas to Qumran and Philo more extensively than you admit. In Beyond the Essene Hypothesis, Gabriele Boccaccini provides a detailed schematic of how First Temple ideas came down through the exile to Qumran and the NT through the Enochic corpus. In a series of books and articles Robert Eisenman has demonstrated connections between personalities, phrasing, and ideas between NT, Qumran, and First Temple Judaism. (Cf., his James, the Brother of Jesus.) Margaret Barker has persuasively argued that the major ideas in NT Christianity were part of First Temple Judaism (cf. The Great Angel; see also Kevin Christensen's excellent summary of her research in his article "Paradigms Regained.") See also Raphael Patai and William Dever on re-looking the faith of First Temple Judaism based on Ugaritic and Canaanite materials. Bottom line: You need to get up to speed on the current trends.

Hi J Green,

I am sorry you think I am a waste of your time. If you don't want to converse with me further that is your right. Nevertheless, before I back down before the name dropping and reference throwing, I want to call you on what looks to me like a bluff.

I continue to insist that First Temple literature and ideas are inadequate explanation for Nephi's prolific use of New Testament concepts. But rather than talk in vague generalities, I want to look at a specific Nephi text. Using this text, I will give you the opportunity to educate me by providing references from the "Cairo Genizah, Qumran corpus, Nag Hammadi, Ras Shamrah, and other discoveries" that explain the material I will point out. (Of course I also know that much of the material from these libraries is second temple material or later and provides no evidence for Nephi's time.)

Here is the text (from 1st Nephi 11 beginning at verse 13), with points of interest highlighted:

13 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.

14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?

15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.

16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?

17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.

18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

19 And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!

20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.

21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?

22 And I answered him, saying: Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things.

23 And he spake unto me, saying: Yea, and the most joyous to the soul.

24 And after he had said these words, he said unto me: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the Son of God going forth among the children of men; and I saw many fall down at his feet and worship him.

25 And it came to pass that I beheld that the rod of iron, which my father had seen, was the word of God, which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life; which waters are a representation of the love of God; and I also beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God.

26 And the angel said unto me again: Look and behold the condescension of God!

27 And I looked and beheld the Redeemer of the world, of whom my father had spoken; and I also beheld the prophet who should prepare the way before him. And the Lamb of God went forth and was baptized of him; and after he was baptized, I beheld the heavens open, and the Holy Ghost come down out of heaven and abide upon him in the form of a dove.

28 And I beheld that he went forth ministering unto the people, in power and great glory; and the multitudes were gathered together to hear him; and I beheld that they cast him out from among them.

29 And I also beheld twelve others following him. And it came to pass that they were carried away in the Spirit from before my face, and I saw them not.

30 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the heavens open again, and I saw angels descending upon the children of men; and they did minister unto them.

31 And he spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the Lamb of God going forth among the children of men. And I beheld multitudes of people who were sick, and who were afflicted with all manner of diseases, and with devils and unclean spirits; and the angel spake and showed all these things unto me. And they were healed by the power of the Lamb of God; and the devils and the unclean spirits were cast out.

32 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record.

33 And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world.

34 And after he was slain I saw the multitudes of the earth, that they were gathered together to fight against the apostles of the Lamb; for thus were the twelve called by the angel of the Lord.

I am interested in references from the First Temple period to the following:

A virgin from Nazareth will be the mother of the Son of God. The Son of God is also the Lamb of God because he will be slain for the sins of the world. But before that happens, a prophet will prepare his way and then baptize him. The Spirit of God will descend on him in the form of a dove. This Son of God will heal the sick and cast out demons. He will have twelve apostles. When the people finally turn against him and kill him, they will do it with a cross. After his death, the twelve will be persecuted by the people.

It will do no good to provide an isolated reference to the word "virgin" somewhere and the words "Son of God" somewhere else, etc. We are talking about a coherent story with all of these pieces playing a part in concert as evidence. It's the story from the New Testament. I contend that this story with this detail does not exist in any of the references you berated me for ignoring. But I am willing to be proved wrong.

The view you present here is just as shallow. It's also incorrect. It only takes into account the statement of one witness that didn't have first-hand knowledge and is most likely inaccurate based on a number of issues, to include several passages in the D&C (cf. D&C 9:8 on instructions to Oliver about translating), other witness statements, and revisions to the text that JS later made. If you want to have an intelligent conversation about this, you need to know the material. Start with the FAIR Wicki article here then read Stephen Ricks' "Joseph Smith's Translation of the Book of Mormon."

I actually have no difficulty dismissing witness from David Whitmer. I also dismiss his witness to the gold plates. Perhaps we can at least agree that he is prone to saying unreliable things. On the other hand, if we go too far in accusing Whitmer and other witnesses of a tendency to say unreliable things -- I hear the other BOM witnesses have done this kind of thing too -- we might have to reconsider whether there were any golden plates to be translated in the first place before we worry about translation methodology.

[Regarding BOM Isaiah] We could also go over the variants you conveniently left out

My study of the Isaiah quotes in Nephi did not find any place that Nephi agreed with the Dead Sea Scrolls against KJV Isaiah. I am aware of claims by John Tvednes about variants, but when I saw some of his examples, they didn't seem too convincing to me. I may not be familiar enough with his work to make a final judgment. In the interest of not trying to take on too many points at once, I'll let that one go for now. But I reiterate my earlier point that, so far, Mormon scholars have not earned the benefit of the doubt for me.

In other words, you're not ready for this discussion. You demonstrate this not only through dated and inaccurate knowledge of the issues, but by remarks to the effect that Mormon scholars "prefer esoteric explanations that are in line with their "testimony" over straightforward explanations that are not." Having read a lot of this literature, I would disagree. They tend to discuss BoM themes in light of current trends, not esoteric ones. If you would like to continue this discussion, please read the literature and understand the issues first. Otherwise it seems like a waste of time for both of us, no?

No one is forcing you to answer my posts. Sit out if you want and I'll talk to other people.

[Honorentheos]

You're assessment is fairly accurate, Honorentheos. Eisenmnan does expand his thoughts in JBJ, and even more so in The New Testament Code. And he would definitely see these issues in a non-Christian context. He would object very strongly, for example, to the uber-Christian context of baptisms in the BoM and PGP. But again, that would be to enlarge the debate. (It's one thing to say there were no baptisms in the OT and quite another to say that there were but they just weren't Christian in nature.) JeffM's point is that NT ideas aren't found in First Temple Judaism. Eisenman would say they are but that they are Jewish in Origin and Jewish in their final Jamesian expression (James as High Priest in the Temple), with serious editing of the NT to change some of this material. Then you have those who feel they are Jewish in Origin (Margaret Barker, for example) and Christian in their final expression but that some of the OT was edited to remove this material. But they would both agree that many of these issues go back a ways within different sects of Judaism. (See Barker's The Great High Priest where she quotes Eisenman several times on these issues.) My argument is fairly limited in scope: Many of the ideas JeffM is keying on are found in strands of Judaism that date back to the First Temple. The real area of focus should be why they are articulated in such a KJV/NT Christian context in the BoM. Is this an artifact of translation, a result of foolish copying, or simply the result of a straight-forward literal translation of what was on the plates? Or is it something else entirely? No matter your preference, I don't think you can simply claim that we don't even have to consider what part the translation played in this. Make sense?

You interested me so much I went out and looked for JBJ. It wasn't available locally but I should receive it within a few days. I am still a bit in shock that Eisenman was cited on this board in support of an LDS view and have to read this material myself to get my mind around why.

As to the translation process, I take a pretty simple view of the matter. That being, anything cited by witnesses prior to Oliver Cowdery acting as scribe does not apply given that we essentially have nothing to read from that period. It's interesting that the manner of translation prior to Oliver was so slow and unproductive, but once Oliver was present the entire procedure practically sailed forward.

And from this perspective, all of the claims that no other material were present, that Joseph cited material verbatim from looking into the hat, etc., become secondary. You'll have to forgive me for being so simplistic, but I don't think there is much need for another explanation that Joseph and Oliver basically copied what they felt fit and made whatever adjustments seemed to benefit the point they were then making in the text.

I particularly found the quote from your link about the sources interesting regarding JS's reticence to describe the process. Certainly, if my feelings on the matter could be considered too simple, it should stand to reason that one should also not so quickly assume JS's reaction was due to persecution rather than the inability to describe the process in a straight-forward manner that would be satisfying to his audience.

And if this is the case, the entire discussion ends at the 19th century reading of a KJV bible with a bit of JS/Oliver Cowdery's personal theological ideas mixed in. Which explains with clear parsimony the point that Jeff M is making. More than that, and one interjects material that is not purely historical, IMO, but is very much the observer influencing the observed. As I see it, anyway.

[J Green]

JeffM,

So . . . let me get this straight: On the NT/First Temple issue, you want to task me with a complex research project, but on the translation issue you won't even bother to take a few minutes to read and consider statements from the other witnesses. Even though I already did the work and provided the links for you. Gee, now that sounds pretty fair. Have a great night. I wish you luck with the other board members.

Hi, Honorentheos:

You interested me so much I went out and looked for JBJ. It wasn't available locally but I should receive it within a few days. I am still a bit in shock that Eisenman was cited on this board in support of an LDS view and have to read this material myself to get my mind around why.

I look forward to a discussion with you after you read it. As I said, I don't agree with everything, but there are things that are very intriguing. I recently had a discussion on another thread where I compared the Rechabite/Zaddik material from Eisenman to Lehi and Nephi. I think there are some good things to explore there.

I particularly found the quote from your link about the sources interesting regarding JS's reticence to describe the process. Certainly, if my feelings on the matter could be considered too simple, it should stand to reason that one should also not so quickly assume JS's reaction was due to persecution rather than the inability to describe the process in a straight-forward manner that would be satisfying to his audience.

Or like most issues, it could involve a number of factors, including both of these. I would struggle myself to articulate the revelatory process. Do we know that JS fully understood this dynamic himself at this stage?

And if this is the case, the entire discussion ends at the 19th century reading of a KJV bible with a bit of JS/Oliver Cowdery's personal theological ideas mixed in. Which explains with clear parsimony the point that Jeff M is making. More than that, and one interjects material that is not purely historical, IMO, but is very much the observer influencing the observed. As I see it, anyway.

It may end there for you, but it doesn't seem very rigorous to simply accept a preconception without exploring the other possibilities--especially within the context of a rational discussion with someone who feels differently. JeffM asks those who believe the BoM to explain the KJV NT language in it. Since those who believe the BoM (like me) believe it to be the product of translation, please tell me how we can have a discussion like this without talking about the translation. I'm all ears.

Regards

[Honorentheos]

Or like most issues, it could involve a number of factors, including both of these. I would struggle myself to articulate the revelatory process. Do we know that JS fully understood this dynamic himself at this stage?

...Since those who believe the BoM (like me) believe it to be the product of translation, please tell me how we can have a discussion like this without talking about the translation. I'm all ears.

Regards

The question, in my mind, is how we first determine what is acceptable to discuss as primary evidence for the actual process? To me, as I have stated, anything that pre-dates Oliver Cowdery's involvement is not reliable on two counts.

First, we really have no material to read that came from this time period as it was almost all contained in the lost 116 pages. To not be able to read this material and see something that appears to be KJV biblical language within the context of the witnesses of that time saying JS had no primary source material in front of him is a serious problem. I can't overlook this.

Second, there has to be some significant change in the methodology used or some other change when Oliver Cowdery (OC) became JS's scribe since the amount of material put to paper under OC's term (April to June 1829) is more and much quicker in production compared to the length of time it took to get the first 116 pages with Harris or the little bit of Mosiah translated with Emma as scribe.

So what process or processes of translation are left once they comes through this filter? And do we discuss the nature of the revelations that give JS his gift to translate back and how that correlates to what was recorded and when?

[Jerubaal]

The problem is that the "God can do it" argument can be used as a kind of "get out of jail free" card - to defend false propositions as easily as true ones.

The problem is, God is claimed as the source by the writers of the BoM itself, it isn't simply an ad hoc explanation reached after Joseph Smith's followers suddenly realized "Oh crud, he's quoting from books that weren't written yet!"

To cite just a couple of examples:

Alma 5:52 (my emphasis)

And again I say unto you, the Spirit saith: Behold, the ax is laid at the root of the tree; therefore every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be hewn down and cast into the fire, yea, a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire. Behold, and remember, the Holy One hath spoken it.

2 Nephi 25:19

For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh in six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem; and according to the words of the prophets, and also the word of the angel of God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

To argue that Divine agency can never be a cause of such things is to a priori assume that God does not exist (or at least can't do anything worth mentioning), which would be an equally bad error in the opposite direction of applying the "God did it" excuse to all theological issues.

[J Green]

The question, in my mind, is how we first determine what is acceptable to discuss as primary evidence for the actual process? To me, as I have stated, anything that pre-dates Oliver Cowdery's involvement is not reliable on two counts.

First, we really have no material to read that came from this time period as it was almost all contained in the lost 116 pages. To not be able to read this material and see something that appears to be KJV biblical language within the context of the witnesses of that time saying JS had no primary source material in front of him is a serious problem. I can't overlook this.

Second, there has to be some significant change in the methodology used or some other change when Oliver Cowdery (OC) became JS's scribe since the amount of material put to paper under OC's term (April to June 1829) is more and much quicker in production compared to the length of time it took to get the first 116 pages with Harris or the little bit of Mosiah translated with Emma as scribe.

So what process or processes of translation are left once they comes through this filter? And do we discuss the nature of the revelations that give JS his gift to translate back and how that correlates to what was recorded and when?

Hi, Honorentheos.

Quite the interesting theory you have here. Do you have any evidence other than a crude product-timeline formula? Emma is working during this time and expecting for part of it. She also talks about having to interrupt translation duties to get ready for the winter. So I don't think you can use her as a good test case in your scribal quantity premise. (Or do you have any evidence that would say otherwise?

As far as Martin is concerned, the production time is slower than with Oliver, but what are all the factors that could conceivably play a part in this? And have you considered all of them? What other duties did Joseph have during at this time? How much did Emma being in her third trimester affect his dictation? How much was Joseph learning about the process itself at this time? (Bushman paints the picture of JS growing into the translation/revelatory process.) How fast did Martin write in comparison to Oliver? How many hours a day did they work? Did Martin's misgivings affect the production timeline in any way? (Did they stop at any time because of it?)

As far as Oliver's tenure is concerned, some of the same questions apply. How fast did he write? What other duties did Joseph have at this time vis-a-vis Emma? How many hours did they work? How did the interlude affect Joseph's will and focus on this project? Did the revelations that rebuked Joseph have any affect on how hard and how long he worked with Oliver? Bushman tells us that Joseph's mission expands during this time, and he understands his place in the restored work better. Joseph receives the text of D&C 4 as a revelation to Joseph Smith, Sr. Does this have any influence on his drive and production output with Oliver? How much has he matured in the revelatory process during this interlude? Does this development affect his ability to translate/dictate more efficiently?

I'm sure there would be other questions, but you get where I'm going. What kind of data would you need to pursue your theory further? I'm not saying it isn't possible, I just think you have some work to do in order to give it some legs. I mean, it really assumes quite a bit, doesn't it?

[Honorentheos]

I'm sure there would be other questions, but you get where I'm going. What kind of data would you need to pursue your theory further? I'm not saying it isn't possible, I just think you have some work to do in order to give it some legs. I mean, it really assumes quite a bit, doesn't it?

While there are many things in your post to respond to, in the interest of the thread I would like to point out that both of my two points are concerning the translation process itself and what would be agreeable for witness testimony regarding the process. I eliminate anything prior to OC simply because we do not have anything from that period to actually read. And that is not only reasonable, but to do otherwise is not scientific.

I would prefer to focus on the results we do have and the process we can feel actually describes how we received it. JS seems to have said, in the 1831 quote you provided, that outside of claiming it was done "by the gift and power of God" he had nothing specific to add and seemed to feel it was best not to get too caught up in the particulars anyway.

As for the use of JS's other scribes and associated descriptions of the process of translation, I only point out that there is really no reason to consider what they did because it does not match the product we have, the process resulted in fewer results that took more time to put to paper, and anything we can say about it would be speculation.

Let's agree to move beyond speculation and to what we CAN read and know who were the two major parties involved - JS and OC.

[JeffM]

JeffM,

So . . . let me get this straight: On the NT/First Temple issue, you want to task me with a complex research project, but on the translation issue you won't even bother to take a few minutes to read and consider statements from the other witnesses. Even though I already did the work and provided the links for you. Gee, now that sounds pretty fair. Have a great night. I wish you luck with the other board members.

Hello J Green,

No problem. I suspected you would respond as you did. I might just point out in closing that, before my last post, you were the only one handing out research projects - and talking down to me while you did it.

[J Green]

While there are many things in your post to respond to, in the interest of the thread I would like to point out that both of my two points are concerning the translation process itself and what would be agreeable for witness testimony regarding the process. I eliminate anything prior to OC simply because we do not have anything from that period to actually read. And that is not only reasonable, but to do otherwise is not scientific.

Only if we assume a different translation process with OC than with other scribes. But that hasn't been demonstrated yet. In any case, Bushman has Emma (and briefly Samuel) as a scribe again after the lost manuscript and before OC takes over, so by your own standards you should at least include Emma.

Let's agree to move beyond speculation and to what we CAN read and know who were the two major parties involved - JS and OC.

And where would you suggest this leads us?

Regards

[Honorentheos]

Only if we assume a different translation process with OC than with other scribes. But that hasn't been demonstrated yet.

To be fair, it really should be shown that the same process was used to produce the results we can actually see. I wouldn't pull out my wallet to buy something advertised in the manner you are proposing we accept for the BoM. Different people, different amount produced, longer timeline - there is no reason to accept your premise at all other than outside belief. I thought we were trying to avoid this trap,based on the OP?

In any case, Bushman has Emma (and briefly Samuel) as a scribe again after the lost manuscript and before OC takes over, so by your own standards you should at least include Emma.

Emma was both the first and last scribe before OC. The results, according to Bushman, are a very small bit of Mosiah. Can you pinpoint the chapter(s) we can use to compare her efforts with those where OC was undoubtedly the scribe?

And where would you suggest this leads us?

Regards

It leads us to the origins of the NT language in the BoM. My contention is, given the evidence, there is no reason not to believe that JS and OC simply copied the KJV biblical language. The anachronistic theology, the messianic terms, the identification of Christ within the NT narratives (which if we get into biblical textual criticism are questionable themselves anyway) - all this becomes a simple matter of 19th century origins. Or God told them, if you prefer.

What we don't have are accurate descriptions of outsiders observing JS reciting the text without a bible in front of him, or any other statement often used to show how a simple farm boy couldn't have been both uneducated and having the bible memorized. It's a Vega show trick to do so (show me this, show me that, draw a parallel that isn't factual, poof! - tip your waitress I'll be here all week...)

[J Green]

To be fair, it really should be shown that the same process was used to produce the results we can actually see. I wouldn't pull out my wallet to buy something advertised in the manner you are proposing we accept for the BoM. Different people, different amount produced, longer timeline - there is no reason to accept your premise at all other than outside belief. I thought we were trying to avoid this trap,based on the OP?

Yet there is no claim that the process has changed, ergo no reason to assume so unless you demonstrate a difference through evidence. A scribal change isn't good enough to create a default assumption that the process had changed. Can you make this same argument with the rest of JS scribes in all his other translations/revelations? This simply appears to be an effort to get Emma's testimony about a lack of reference material thrown out of court. It seems to be more about impeaching evidence that doesn't agree with you rather than a purchasing standard.

Emma was both the first and last scribe before OC. The results, according to Bushman, are a very small bit of Mosiah. Can you pinpoint the chapter(s) we can use to compare her efforts with those where OC was undoubtedly the scribe?

I'm not convinced yet that we need to differentiate this. So far this whole thing is fairly circular.

It leads us to the origins of the NT language in the BoM. My contention is, given the evidence, there is no reason not to believe that JS and OC simply copied the KJV biblical language. The anachronistic theology, the messianic terms, the identification of Christ within the NT narratives (which if we get into biblical textual criticism are questionable themselves anyway) - all this becomes a simple matter of 19th century origins. Or God told them, if you prefer.

What we don't have are accurate descriptions of outsiders observing JS reciting the text without a bible in front of him, or any other statement often used to show how a simple farm boy couldn't have been both uneducated and having the bible memorized. It's a Vega show trick to do so (show me this, show me that, draw a parallel that isn't factual, poof! - tip your waitress I'll be here all week...)

Except that there really is no evidence for this at all. At first you offered production length as evidence for a change, but when I asked a number of reasonable questions about this assumption, you changed the argument to say that a lack of manuscript evidence results in lack of proof that it was the same process. (Changing the goal posts.) There is evidence that excludes reference material in the process. There is no reason to exclude Emma's testimony. There is no evidence in the long history of JS scribes that a different scribe changed the translation/revelatory method. It's a theory that is based on assumption that lacks any evidence.

Bottom line: I'm willing to discuss your conclusions if you can show me some basic evidence for the premise. If not, we need to continue based on the information en toto. I'm not willing to limit the data set just yet without good reason to do so.

Regards

[Honorentheos]

Yet there is no claim that the process has changed, ergo no reason to assume so unless you demonstrate a difference through evidence. A scribal change isn't good enough to create a default assumption that the process had changed.

The challenge is that there is no evidence to say it was the same process and the facts we do have indicate SOMETHING changed when Oliver Cowdery took over as scribe. You, yourself, started offering excuses why Emma may have been slower, why JS may have had fewer outside responsibilties to slow him down, etc., all to account for this evidence.

And yet there is nothing we can actually read as part of the BoM from the time period when the translation process was performed for the 116 pages under circumstances when Emma gave her description, when Issac Hale, an outside observer, gave his, or even David Whitmer. We have no reason, whatsoever, that these testimonies apply to the period of April-June 1829 and to say that JS and OC didn't have a copy of the bible in front of them when they performed the actual work that resulted in what we have available to read.

It's a parlor trick to suggest otherwise.

Seriously, make your points without it or leave them to matters of faith.

[J Green]

The parlor trick lies in trying to exclude Emma's testimony. What you are offering is a different paradigm. It's not claimed by Joseph, not recorded by Lucy Mack. Bushman doesn't buy it, Remini doesn't mention it. There may be some merit to your thesis, but you have to do more than simply claim it as the default view and tell me I have to impeach it. It's the other way around. Offer some evidence and it can be evaluated, but considering the landscape of Mormon history, you're not in a position to be demanding that this be assumed a priori.

[Honorentheos]

The parlor trick lies in trying to exclude Emma's testimony. What you are offering is a different paradigm. It's not claimed by Joseph, not recorded by Lucy Mack. Bushman doesn't buy it, Remini doesn't mention it. There may be some merit to your thesis, but you have to do more than simply claim it as the default view and tell me I have to impeach it. It's the other way around. Offer some evidence and it can be evaluated, but considering the landscape of Mormon history, you're not in a position to be demanding that this be assumed a priori.

The evidence for why this is the book itself. Emma made a claim for how JS worked at a certain period of time which corresponds with the 116 pages. It is a valid claim, but we do not have the material produced at that time to read and compare with the language, messianic imagery, or parallels to the KJV of the bible. It applies to what she saw written.

If your discussion hinges on Emma's witness, then I guess we have reached a point beyond which we won't be able to agree. I don't see her witness applying to what we have in the form of the BoM. JS himself, the one most able to give a description, didn't do so when asked. Oliver Cowdery cites the continued use of the Urim and Thummim, but outside of this we don't really have any statements to say they were dictating text from the stones/plates onto the BoM and what they provided using this method is what we are reading today in the text. The text we have itself, with the issues described in various places in this thread as well as through-out the whole of BoM criticism, becomes evidence they were copying it from the KJV with whatever changes they saw fit to make. When someone tries to refute this, they always resort to the outdated evidence of the translation process described to produce the 116 pages. I find that unfortunate for your position.

[Cold Steel]

You are placing the Book of Mormon and the Restoration in an adversarial position. As believers, we proffer nothing but what we have. Certainly we can see that the same phrases and language are used, but we certainly aren't playing a game. The Lord states in the Book of Mormon that when the two records come together, that they will combine as a witness to the world that the Lord speaks unto one nation like unto another, and that the testimony will be unto the convincing of the Jew and Gentile.

The Lord controls all the cards and determines who goes to jail and who doesn't. It's one of those things that just don't concern me. Certainly if Joseph Smith was a huckster, then that would explain why the phrases were the same. On the other hand, if the work is of God, I don't find it at all strange that the words and concepts inspired by the Spirit would be the same.

The evidence for the work being ancient and historical are substantial. It's not proof, but evidence. Proof is elusive on both sides of the issue. We may not have the gold plates, but our critics don't have any poison letters that would indicate that it was a hoax. In other words, the Lord wants the evidence for Moses, Jesus and Joseph Smith to be tentative, and, in Hugh Nibley's words, "forever tentative," meaning until all things are finally settled.

[J Green]

The evidence for why this is so is the lack of evidence that it is not. Emma made a claim for how JS worked at a certain period of time which corresponds with the 116 pages. It is a valid claim, but we do not have the material produced at that time to read and compare with the language, messianic imagery, or parallels to the KJV of the bible. It applies to what she saw written.

If your discussion hinges on Emma's witness, then I guess we have reached a point beyond which we won't be able to agree. I don't see her witness applying to what we have in the form of the BoM. JS himself, the one most able to give a description, didn't do so when asked. Oliver Cowdery cites the continued use of the Urim and Thummim, but outside of this we don't really have any statements to say they were dictating text from the stones/plates onto the BoM and what they provided using this method is what we are reading today in the text. The text we have itself, with the issues described in various places, becomes evidence they were copying it with whatever changes they saw fit to make. When someone tries to refute this, they always resort to the outdated evidence of the translation process described to produce the 116 pages. I find that unfortunate for your position.

Hi, Honorentheos.

Two points for you to consider:

1. Emma was not just part of the 116 pages. Emma also was scribe after the 116 pages. Further, she worked daily in the same room where JS dictated to Oliver throughout their process. And she was also a scribe after the BoM. It's rather inane to propose that she knew nothing of the translation process of the non-116 pages era. She's probably the single best witness for the totality of the translation process from start to finish. Her statements on this issue to Joseph Smith III were in direct response to his query about the actual BoM (not the 116 pages), and she told him that there was no way JS could have concealed any reference material from her. Trying to relegate statements like this to an earlier era and then to exclude them altogether is simply poor history.

2. Just because I've objected to your excluding Emma's testimony doesn't equate to an argument that we rely only on her statements. I want to look at all the material and put each testimony in context. I don't care for limiting the data set unless there is good reason. And so far all you've produced is a circular argument where the lack of evidence for a change of process with OC somehow vindicates an argument for a change of process with OC.

We are indeed at an impasse, and I hope that iocane powder is not the only solution. If you continue to insist that your premise is the only conclusion without offering any real evidence, then there's really no place for me in the conversation. It just becomes an extended soliloquy, and you can do that without me. But if you'd like to present more evidence for your theory, look at all the statements together, discuss the various merits for a loose v. tight translation, or anything else along those lines, please let me know.

Whatever your choice, it's always a pleasure.

Regards

[Honorentheos]

1. Emma was not just part of the 116 pages. Emma also was scribe after the 116 pages. ...Her statements on this issue to Joseph Smith III were in direct response to his query about the actual BoM (not the 116 pages), and she told him that there was no way JS could have concealed any reference material from her. Trying to relegate statements like this to an earlier era and then to exclude them altogether is simply poor history.

Then perhaps I have limited quotes given what I recall directly had statements such as "when I was writing for your father", in the last interview, and when describing the process that included JS spelling words out this was with her "pen in hand" so to speak. So if you would like something else considered, please feel free to share it.

2. Just because I've objected to your excluding Emma's testimony doesn't equate to an argument that we rely only on her statements. I want to look at all the material and put each testimony in context. I don't care for limiting the data set unless there is good reason. And so far all you've produced is a circular argument where the lack of evidence for a change of process with OC somehow vindicates an argument for a change of process with OC.

We are indeed at an impasse, and I hope that iocane powder is not the only solution. If you continue to insist that your premise is the only conclusion without offering any real evidence, then there's really no place for me in the conversation. It just becomes an extended soliloquy, and you can do that without me. But if you'd like to present more evidence for your theory, look at all the statements together, discuss the various merits for a loose v. tight translation, or anything else along those lines, please let me know.

Whatever your choice, it's always a pleasure.

Regards

I am not sure that you are not free to make your point that you wished to share with Jeff M but choose instead to accused him of not being up to speed on the translation process. I'm familiar with the matter, obviously have my own thoughts on it, but am perfectly happy to read what you feel you have that is worth sharing.

So by all means, don't let me stop you.

[J Green]

Then perhaps I have limited quotes given what I recall directly had statements such as "when I was writing for your father", in the last interview, and when describing the process that included JS spelling words out this was with her "pen in hand" so to speak. So if you would like something else considered, please feel free to share it.

The last interview gives us a description of the plates as they were set up on the desk during the OC era, not the MH era. Therefore we are talking about a time period after the 116 pages. She stresses that she was in this same room with JS and OC every day. And she was a scribe at the beginning of this era, which, by the way, required her to hold a pen (scribal duties are weird that way). Feel free to read the quote in Early Mormon Documents, Rough Stone Rolling, By the Hand of Mormon, or any other history that tries to collect all the evidence instead of limiting the data set. You can find it on a number of web sites as well, such as here.

I am not sure that you are not free to make your point that you wished to share with Jeff M but choose instead to accused him of not being up to speed on the translation process.

You are correct except that you have order of events reversed. I attempted several times first to make the point I wished to share---to wit, that the translation process must have something to do with KJV NT language in the BoM. When JeffM finally addressed these repeated attempts, he made it clear that he has only read the David Whitmer statement and doesn

[JeffM]

What is the purpose of confirming the truth of the BOM? It is to say that Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet. If by the other doctrine he taught, this is confirmed, what then does it matter if the BOM by itself is the fulcrum on which a testimony is built. The reason I didn't really question the BOM was because it made absolute sense that God would leave records with another people. I believe there are other records out there from other civilizations which we have yet to find.

... If you are absolutely certain that the testimony is from divine source then that is reliable. I had been studying and searching other faiths and praying about this so when I found the LDS church I knew instantly and with a surety that cannot be described that this was what I was searching for; I had already laid the groundwork. I had to go through the missionary lessons before I could be baptized and what they taught made so much sense and was what I instinctively believed that it supported my spiritual confirmation.

Hi Deborah,

I believe the portion of your comments that I underlined above is the single biggest reason for Joseph Smith's success. He was able to convince his people that certainty could provide an assurance of correctness -- and where correctness was assured, there was no need to look for the incorrect. Even though this "certainty" could seem incorrect at times, it couldn't really be incorrect. As a result, explanations for difficult issues that preserved the correctness of the certainty were always preferable to explanations that did not. In other words, when Joseph Smith's formula was embraced, it short circuited the normal human capacity for legitimate re-evaluation of the subject matter he presented to the world.

I suspect this is often the real reason why, for example, many Mormon believers refuse to recognize the obvious presence of New Testament concepts and quotations in Nephi and begin looking under every rock for the "real" reason those concepts are there. If someone can find one piece of a fragment of 1/100th of the New Testament story somewhere else, that is enough to explain the phenonemon of Nephi. For the rest, the "God can do it" argument suffices - because the correct can't be incorrect.

Why do I think Joseph Smith's formula is wrong? Because if there is even one person on this earth who is certain of God's guidance who has not been guided to embrace the same truth as any other person with the same certainty, then there is at least one example of a certainty that is incorrect. I myself know people who have been "guided by God" to conflicting "certainties". The existence of one certainty about God's guidance that is incorrect proves that the principle of "certainty equals correctness" is wrong - which means Joseph's formula (Note: I include Moroni's challenge, etc., under this label) is not dependable.

[Lightbearer]

Why do I think Joseph Smith's formula is wrong? Because if there is even one person on this earth who is certain of God's guidance who has not been guided to embrace the same truth as any other person with the same certainty, then there is at least one example of a certainty that is incorrect. I myself know people who have been "guided by God" to conflicting "certainties". The existence of one certainty about God' guidance that is incorrect proves that the principle of "certainty equals correctness" is wrong - which means Joseph's formula (Note: I include Moroni's challenge, etc., under this label) is not dependable.

How do you know that those who reject the Book of Mormon are not guided or deceived by Satan? Or blinded by the craftiness of men? If you do not believe that God can answer prayers then all bets are off, but I see Satan's opposition on the individual as being the "wild card" or the variable factor here. The book is a test of faith, some pass and others fail, it could not be otherwise. It is like the testimony of the apostles in the old world, either His disciples stole his body or they really saw Him and He is risen as He said and as they witnessed and as the Holy Ghost (God) testified to the individuals. If we could produce the gold plates all that would do is prove that Joseph had gold plates, it would not prove the angels, or the First Vision or what was written on the plates, or if what was written was true. The restoration is based on the testimonies of the participants involved, they are the witnesses. How can you prove it? You can't without faith, and that is the whole point and purpose of the Gospel. It is designed to increase our faith, and to test it at the same time. It is the design of God that we develop this faith into a sure knowledge which only comes after faith is exercised. So how can you determine it's validity? Since it is purported to have come from God then the only sure way is to ask Him. So in reality "Joseph's formula" is the only dependable determining factor.

So actually your entire thread is really based on "How to short circuit faith by demanding evidence other than that which God can provide." That is why "the natural man is the enemy of God" because he rejects the things of the spirit. How can faith grow unless it is planted? How can it be strengthened without it being exercised? God is the one who convinces, not us, not our logical arguments, but by the spirit of truth. There is a spirit of truth and a spirit of error, the test of this life is determining within ourselves which spirit to listen to and which to follow. That is what we will be judged on. "My sheep hear my voice" and so that is why this is a test of faith.

[Jason]

Why do I think Joseph Smith's formula is wrong? Because if there is even one person on this earth who is certain of God's guidance who has not been guided to embrace the same truth as any other person with the same certainty, then there is at least one example of a certainty that is incorrect. I myself know people who have been "guided by God" to conflicting "certainties". The existence of one certainty about God's guidance that is incorrect proves that the principle of "certainty equals correctness" is wrong - which means Joseph's formula (Note: I include Moroni's challenge, etc., under this label) is not dependable.

It doesn't mean that all instances of "certainty" are wrong.

Since we can only experience our own "certainty", we can't really determine if the certainty experienced by others is really the same thing. "Certainty" cannot be accurately measured and compared or contrasted.

[Deborah]

I suspect this is often the real reason why, for example, many Mormon believers refuse to recognize the obvious presence of New Testament concepts and quotations in Nephi and begin looking under every rock for the "real" reason those concepts are there.

On the contrary, LDS have addressed issues such as this. It's just that such explanations are unsatisfactory to people like you and no matter what explanation is given you'll never accept it.

[Honorentheos]

Hi, J Green,

Thank you for sharing the Emma Smith last testimony. It certainly broadens the discussion and should be considered for what it says, both on the subject at hand as well as in general. For those curious about it, our Uncle Dale has the original Saints Herald with the interview as published by the RLDS church here- SH, 1 Oct 1879

The last interview gives us a description of the plates as they were set up on the desk during the OC era, not the MH era.

I don't believe this is true. She does say what you suggest below - that OC and JS worked on the translation in the same room she was in, but the desk references are not specific to the OC time frame. What she does say, in answer to this question is interesting.

Question: Could not father have dictated the Book of Mormon to you, Oliver Cowdery and the others who wrote for him, after having first written it, or having first read it out of some book?

Answer: Joseph Smith (and for the first time she used his name direct, having usually used the words, "your father" or "my husband") could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter, let alone dictate a book like the Book of Mormon. And, though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, and was present during the translation of the plates, and had cognizance of things as they transpired, it is marvelous to me, "a marvel and a wonder," as much so as to anyone else.

In short, her answer is a long version of JS's "It was done by the gift and power of God" without saying that JS did or did not copy it from any other source, OC had a significant involvement in the process, or anything that really means much else other than the product is what matters.

But before you accuse me of being dodgy on the issue, I want to point this out so we can agree that Emma was not being honest in this interview, or else the words were manipulated by the RLDS church prior to publication.

From the same interview -

Question. What about the revelation on polygamy? Did Joseph Smith have anything like it? What of spiritual wifery?

Answer. There was no revelation on either polygamy or spiritual wives. There were some rumors of something of the sort, of which I asked my husband. He assured me that all there was of it was, that, in a chat about plural wives, he had said, "Well, such a system might possibly be, if everybody was agreed to it, and would behave as they should; but they would not; and besides, it was contrary to the will of heaven." No such thing as polygamy or spiritual wifery was taught, publicly or privately, before my husband's death, that I have now, or ever had any knowledge of.

Question. Did he not have other wives than yourself?

Answer. He had no other wife but me; nor did he to my knowledge ever have.

Question. Did he not hold marital relations with women other than yourself?

Answer. He did not have improper relations with any woman that ever came to my knowledge.

Question. Was there nothing about spiritual wives that you recollect?

Answer. At one time my husband came to me and asked me if I had heard certain rumors about spiritual marriages, or anything of the kind; and assured me that if I had, that they were without foundation; that there was no such doctrine, and never should be with his knowledge or consent. I know that he had no other wife or wives than myself, in any sense, either spiritual or otherwise.

He had no other wives, spiritually or otherwise...we know this isn't true and we know that Emma knew it wasn't true.

Anyway.

Well, we can start with all the links I

[J Green]

Hi, Honorentheos.

She does say what you suggest below - that OC and JS worked on the translation in the same room she was in, but the desk references are not specific to the OC time frame.

You're right that the period for the desk reference is not specified, but the description sounds more like the OC era than the MH one. During the former, she starts off as scribe then works in the room every day, and the plates are either on the table or in her red trunk during this time. During the MH era, we get mostly references to the plates hidden behind the curtain. Doesn't this feel more like the OC era to you? Bushman seems to feel the same way, as he places this quote in the context of the return to translation duties after the loss of the 116 pages.

What she does say, in answer to this question is interesting.

[sNIP]

In short, her answer is a long version of JS's "It was done by the gift and power of God" without saying that JS did or did not copy it from any other source, OC had a significant involvement in the process, or anything that really means much else other than the product is what matters.

You might have missed this just a few paragraphs earlier:

Question. Had he not a book or manuscript from which he read, or dictated to you?

Answer. He had neither manuscript nor book to read from.

Question. Could he not have had, and you not know it?

Answer. If he had had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.

But before you accuse me of being dodgy on the issue, I want to point this out so we can agree that Emma was not being honest in this interview, or else the words were manipulated by the RLDS church prior to publication.

Like any account, you take a look at all the factors in context. Another concern, which you haven't mentioned, is its lateness. This is many decades removed from the event. But as I said earlier, I don't think the entire case stands or falls with any of Emma's statements. My point is that we should be looking at all of the witness statements in this manner instead of limiting the set based simply on scribal output. This is a start.

I suspect that any argument from the position that the LDS view is correct requires both to be true. It must be tight to account for the Hebrewisms while also being loose to account for the direct insertion of language from what would have been JS's mind in some form or other.

There seem to be some very good minds advocating for either a loose or a tight translation but not both. So naturally, I think differently. I've worked with several languages in a wide variety of translation projects for the last few decades, and I think there is good evidence in the BoM for both tight and loose translations. But I came to this based simply on seeing good evidence for both and not due to a strategic-level assumption that there has to be both. And while I see KJV language frequently in the BoM, I also occasionally find passages that appear to reference Biblical texts without the KJV language. Why is that? While I certainly fall into your category of a believing LDS who through personal revelation knows the BoM to be true and to refer to an actual civilization, I don't feel that any of these questions have to go any specific way in order to prove that it's true. I don't have an agenda here, and I'm not tied to specific theories. I'm very interested myself in what the process may have been.

In the interest of actually accomplishing something, perhaps we should be less ambitious with this list? You choose and I will be happy to do my share of the lifting.

Fair enough. Let's start with the first item on the list. According to all the evidence we have, is the translation a mechanical dictation, or is there room for Joseph to articulate the translation in his own words? I've seen enough to know that there is evidence for both. I suppose the real question is whether these two processes are mutually exclusive or whether they can be harmonized. From your view as a critic, what would you say is JS' claim in this regard? But before I make any initial comments, I plan to read over some of the material again. Feel free to jump in or wait for me. If I come back and find that you haven't started, I'll lead the way.

Regards