Translation Method

[LifeOnaPlate]

I can understand why apologists may not want to explore this, as it's being true would certainly provide skeptics with new powder for their ammunition.

I think the difficulty here is in the realm of evidence.

[Lamanite]

I'd really like to see some of these fragmented idea's begin to gel. Someone must have a beginning to end methodology or process...

Care to share?

Perhaps if we use a portion of the text so that we may speak to specifics.

2 Ne. 22: 2 Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid; for the Lord Jehovah is my strength and my song; he also has become my salvation.

How is it that this text came into existence? What do you (anyone out there) think the exact process was from the beginning of the verse with "Behold" to the end with "salvation." Obviously paying close attention to the name/title Jehovah. How did it work? How did these words get on the paper?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[the narrator]

I think the difficulty here is in the realm of evidence.

Well here is a starting point:

History of the Church vol.5 xxxii-xxxiii (i found this with a quick google book search, so i may not have the source exactly right)

On the morning of the 12th of July, 1843; Joseph and Hyrum Smith came into the office in the upper story of the brick store, on the bank of the Mississippi river. They were talking on the subject of plural marriage. Hyrum said to Joseph, 'If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take it and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace.'Joseph smiled and remarked, 'You do not know Emma as well as I do.' Hyrum repeated his opinion, and further remarked, 'The doctrine is so plain, I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth, purity and heavenly origin,' or words to that effect. Joseph then said, 'Well, I will write the revelation and we will see.' He then requested me to get paper and prepare to write. Hyrum very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim, but Joseph in reply, said he did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end."Joseph and Hyrum then sat down and Joseph commenced to dictate the revelation on celestial marriage, and I wrote it, sentence by sentence, as he dictated. After the whole was written. Joseph asked me to read it through, slowly and carafully, which I did, and he pronounced it correct. He then remarked that there was much more that he could write on the same subject, but what was written was sufficient for the present."I!vrun: then took the revelation to read to Emma. Joseph remained with me in the office until Hyrum returned. When he came back,Joseph asked him how he had succeeded. Hyrum replied thai he had never received a more severe talking: to in his life, that Emma wasvery bitter and full of resentment and anger."Joseph quietly remarked, 'I told you you did not know Emma as well as I did.' Joseph then put the revelation in his pocket, and they both left the office."The revelation was read to several of the authorities during the day. Towards evening Bishop Newel K. Whitney asked Joseph if he had any objections to his taking a copy of the revelation; Joseph replied that he had not, and handed it to him. It was carefully copied the following day by Joseph C. Kingsbury. Two or three days after the revelation was written Joseph related to me and several others that Emma had so teased, and urgently entreated him for the privilege of destroying it, that he became so weary of her teasing, and to get rid of her annoyance, he told her she might destroy it and she had done so, hut he had consented to her wish in this matter to pacify her, realizing that he knew the revelation perfectly, and could rewrite it at any time if necessary.

[William Schryver]

the narrator:

To say that the 19th century anti-universalist caricatures found in the BofM are accurate translations of description of universalists in the BofM seems a bit problematic.

Sure it does

[MAsh]

Hey Mike,

I just used the book as a reference in the thread on the question concerning the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon, so yes, dear Brother, I believe it's a great source. The authors provide a nice introduction for an educated lay audience.

Best,

--DB

Thanks David.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well here is a starting point:

History of the Church vol.5 xxxii-xxxiii (i found this with a quick google book search, so i may not have the source exactly right)

I personally wouldn't build a whole case around that without analyzing the source of the incident, and also trying to find other corroborating evidence. Even then, it would be an inductive case, and a pretty loose one at that, IMO. (FTR I'm not saying it isn't possible, or that it would even bother me at all if it were the case.)

[volgadon]

weep at the appropriate moments each time they watch Fiddler on the Roof.

And most likely have no idea that stories in book form even exist, let alone read them.

[Brant Gardner]

If it were only the issue of the archaic vocabulary that suggested Skousen

[William Schryver]

I personally wouldn't build a whole case around that without analyzing the source of the incident, and also trying to find other corroborating evidence. Even then, it would be an inductive case, and a pretty loose one at that, IMO. (FTR I'm not saying it isn't possible, or that it would even bother me at all if it were the case.)

Not only that, but it's hardly a question that lends itself to an answer of "photographic memory." We're talking about chapter upon chapter upon chapter of material; day after day after day; all of it recited in one long stream of text; all of it harmonizing textually with the remainder; no cases of (as they term it in movie-making) "discontinuity"; consistency of theme within the larger context (in other words, it purports to be a multi-generation record spanning 1000 years, and it never "breaks character" from start to finish). It goes on and on.

Then one must reconcile the recorded testimonies of eyewitnesses to the process with the notion that Joseph Smith is either memorizing each day's body of text, or making it up as he goes along--by "inspiration," of course.

This is why I've always maintained that the explanation Joseph Smith gives for the Book of Mormon is orders of magnitude more parsimonious than the one Dan Vogel suggests, the only real "difficulties," if you can term them such, being the regular appearance of heavenly messengers and the existence and use of a stone with text-messaging capabilities.

[volgadon]

Thanks David.

IMHO, it is an ok book. It is the sort of book, along with anything by William Deever, that I would recommend to people who think that archaeology proves the Bible, just so they can see how the little we know does nothing of the sort and is something of a double-edged sword. I am more of a maximalist when it comes to biblical archaeology, but it is good to read as many differing POVs as possible. Finkelstein is definitely competent, but his conclusions on the monarchy and Iron Age IIa are being challenged by some important new finds.

[William Schryver]

Please understand that there is a big difference between the evidence Skousen has extracted from the manuscripts and the explanation he creates for them. I wouldn't dispute his data. Most of the time, I agree with his conclusions. However, there are times (and the archaic vocabulary is one of them) where I agree with the data but not the conclusion from the data. Because they are two different things, it is not true that I "dismiss the secrets" he has discovered.

But Brant, it's not just the question of the vocabulary! It's a multi-faceted problem.

It's the very nature of the way the text was delivered; the interminable stream of text constituted of discrete blocks of words; the witness testimony concerning the nature of the day after day recitation of the text; picking up right where they left off hours before, with no review of the previously written material.

It all bespeaks a text being delivered rather than one being developed "on the spot," whether by inspiration or genius.

Not only that, (and this, quite frankly, is one of the things no one ever seems to address) but if Joseph had all these elaborately refined thoughts about (just for example) "anti-universalism," then why is there no evidence of him speaking on these themes in other settings? If he is so influenced by the religious milieu about him, and that influence is being manifest in such a refined manner within the pages of the Book of Mormon, then why don't we see a corresponding focus on such things in his other public pronouncements and/or writings?

Joseph Smith, for all intents and purposes, never quotes the Book of Mormon during his entire career! He doesn't speak publicly to its themes. He doesn't continue to write (dictate) on these topics. If he is so motivated by and so conversant with these themes, and they are so informed by his experience, then why is he virtually silent on these topics outside the pages of the Book of Mormon?

I could go on, but that will suffice for the moment.

[Lamanite]

It's a multi-faceted problem.

It seems to be a multi faceted problem which no one cares to address specifically. I'll repost for anyone interested:

2 Ne. 22: 2 Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid; for the Lord Jehovah is my strength and my song; he also has become my salvation.

How is it that this text came into existence? What do you (anyone out there) think the exact process was from the beginning of the verse with "Behold" to the end with "salvation." Obviously paying close attention to the name/title Jehovah. How did it work? How did these words get on the paper?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[the narrator]

the narrator:

To say that the 19th century anti-universalist caricatures found in the BofM are accurate translations of description of universalists in the BofM seems a bit problematic.

Sure it does

[the narrator]

Well here is a starting point:

History of the Church vol.5 xxxii-xxxiii (i found this with a quick google book search, so i may not have the source exactly right)

I personally wouldn't build a whole case around that without analyzing the source of the incident, and also trying to find other corroborating evidence. Even then, it would be an inductive case, and a pretty loose one at that, IMO. (FTR I'm not saying it isn't possible, or that it would even bother me at all if it were the case.)

I believe that is why i called it a starting point. I don't think I ever claim close to saying that a whole case should be built around it. I began by saying that:

Another avenue that I don't think has ever been really explored is Joseph Smith's memory. I think there is evidence (such as his ability to apparently recite a revelation word-for-word) that Joseph had a photographic memory. This could explain Joseph ability to extensively quote the Bible while translating./quote]

If you don't think that Joseph's reported ability to be have memorized and be able to cite a lengthy revelation is not possible evidence of his ability to memorize lengthy texts or have a photographic memory, then you and I have grown up speaking a different form of English.

Now, of course, it is not enough to "build a whole case around"--which is why I never said such a ludicrous thing.

Perhaps you need to be a little less quick to put on your dismissive apologist hat.

[the narrator]

Joseph Smith, for all intents and purposes, never quotes the Book of Mormon during his entire career! He doesn't speak publicly to its themes. He doesn't continue to write (dictate) on these topics. If he is so motivated by and so conversant with these themes, and they are so informed by his experience, then why is he virtually silent on these topics outside the pages of the Book of Mormon?

Except, of course, millenialism, witnesses to the plates, missions to the lamanites, gathering, zion, a New Jerusalem in the Americas, baptism of children, etc...

And while he doesn't cite the Book of Mormon with these things, that's pretty much the case with his own revelations, and other translated texts--such as his prophetic expansion of the Genesis texts and Abraham--though we may see a little more of the latter. As most scholars of Joseph (such as Bushman) would agree, Joseph rarely stuck with anything, but was constantly and prophetically shaking things up. Even after going through and editing the Book of Mormon (with slight changes) for a new edition, Joseph did't cite the text directly. Are you going to say that he didn't actually read the text while doing this?--though I personally believe that these changes actually hurt the internal theology of the text.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I believe that is why i called it a starting point. I don't think I ever claim close to saying that a whole case should be built around it. I began by saying that:

Another avenue that I don't think has ever been really explored is Joseph Smith's memory. I think there is evidence (such as his ability to apparently recite a revelation word-for-word) that Joseph had a photographic memory. This could explain Joseph ability to extensively quote the Bible while translating./quote]

If you don't think that Joseph's reported ability to be have memorized and be able to cite a lengthy revelation is not possible evidence of his ability to memorize lengthy texts or have a photographic memory, then you and I have grown up speaking a different form of English.

Now, of course, it is not enough to "build a whole case around"--which is why I never said such a ludicrous thing.

Perhaps you need to be a little less quick to put on your dismissive apologist hat.

Ha, well right now I am wearing a green bowler! I've thought more about the photographic memory possibilities than you might suspect. (And yes, my response was offbase in regards to your original comment noting a starting point.) Overall I think making such a case would, at best, be speculative. But I am not using that word as a pejorative, and it's probably just stating the obvious.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Except, of course, millenialism, witnesses to the plates, missions to the lamanites, gathering, zion, a New Jerusalem in the Americas, baptism of children, etc...

And while he doesn't cite the Book of Mormon with these things, that's pretty much the case with his own revelations, and other translated texts--such as his prophetic expansion of the Genesis texts and Abraham--though we may see a little more of the latter. As most scholars of Joseph (such as Bushman) would agree, Joseph rarely stuck with anything, but was constantly and prophetically shaking things up. Even after going through and editing the Book of Mormon (with slight changes) for a new edition, Joseph did't cite the text directly. Are you going to say that he didn't actually read the text while doing this?--though I personally believe that these changes actually hurt the internal theology of the text.

Don't forget about things like authority, the Aaronic priesthood, the promises quoted from Malachi, etc.

[the narrator]

Overall I think making such a case would, at best, be speculative.

What historical interpretation isn't?

[William Schryver]

the narrator:

I'm certain you know what a caricature is (if not, google it).

Something tells me you

[Lamanite]

My fabulous thread is quickly deteriorating from gentlemanly debate to...well, something else.

[the narrator]

What I want to know is how Joseph Smith was able to so accurately anticipate the 20th century appeal and fundamental tenets of secular humanism in order to so eloquently speak to those questions with the story of Korihor!

Because secular humanism was one of the hallmarks of 19th century enlightenment. And the Book of Mormon certainly doesn't address the logical positivists, nor post-modern secularists of the 20th century. Rather it was a text translated for the 19th century, and thus reflects and utilizes 19th century religious rhetoric.

And, again, you fail to explain Vogel's primary point of Nephite universalists being described and self-described with 19th century anti-universalist caricatures of universalists.

I'm a believer in the Book of Mormon as being a translation of an ancient text. I just don't think that our apologetic hats have to be screwed on so tight that we are unwilling to entertain evidence that counter certain fundamentalist apologetic claims.

[volgadon]

My fabulous thread is quickly deteriorating from gentlemanly debate to...well, something else.

I'm doing my best to keep your absolutely fabulous thread if not on-topic, at least gentlemanly.

[Lamanite]

I'm doing my best to keep your absolutely fabulous thread if not on-topic, at least gentlemanly.

I actually like off topic, sub topic, or insane topic- even snarky and rude sometimes. But its been such a good thread that I would hate to derail it with anything less than love unfeigned.

I also wish some of the people who have shared so many idea's about the translation would put those theories to the test in my textual challenge.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[William Schryver]

LE:

Because secular humanism was one of the hallmarks of 19th century enlightenment.

Bunk! "Secular humanism" as a phrase doesn't even enter the lexicon until the early 20th century. "Secularism" as a word wasn't even coined until the mid-19th century. "Humanism" is certainly a feature of enlightenment thought, but it is not synonymous with "secular humanism" and its proponents were always careful to accommodate prevailing Christian moral sensibilities. You would absolutely never have heard an 18th or 19th century humanist (at least in public) suggesting that "whatsoever a man does is no crime."

So I'm issuing you a big CFR.

I challenge you to cite any articulation of "secular humanism" from the 18th or 19th centuries that comes even close to saying what Korihor had to say. Not only that, but you'd better find it somewhere that Joseph Smith had ready access to it, because it (in my judgment) is probably the single most clearly elucidated "ism" against which the Book of Mormon speaks, and that over a century before the philosophy would appear and begin to gain any traction in America and the world at large.

I look forward to your reply.

[William Schryver]

LE: