Translation Method

[Benjamin McGuire]

I'm not understanding why this is difficult to understand.

Which would create stronger evidence for Joseph reading a line and not coming up with the line himself:

1. the dictation line beginning mid-sense; having a change of sense in the middle and ending before a sense is over

ex. "of goodly parents therefor i was taught in"

2. the dictation line containing a whole sense-line

ex. "therefore i was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father."

Number 2 obviously makes the stronger suggestion that Joseph is simply reading the text and not in any sense translating it himself. As far as the distinction you wish to make, number 2 also could represent Joseph having come up with it the same as Joseph reading it.

Which would make it seem more like Joseph was coming up with each line himself, and not reading something that was given to him:

1. the dictation line beginning mid-sense; having a change of sense in the middle and ending before a sense is over

ex. "of goodly parents therefor i was taught in"

2. the dictation line containing a whole sense-line

ex. "therefore i was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father."

I don't think a text is capable of demonstrating this. In both cases, we would suppose that Joseph (either as reader or as the author) has before him the complete sense.

William, here is a fun little game you can play to test it out yourself. Find someone near you and try ask them to dictate a story that you are going to tell them. Tell him the story sentence by sentence (as in #2) , waiting for him to write it down each sentence before you give him the next one. See if you can do it. I'm guessing this wouldn't be too difficult for you.

And now we see the real issue here. In what way does this actually resemble the process that occurred with the Book of Mormon? In other words, ultimately, what are your assumptions that you bring to the table with regards to the translation process? If I don't agree with your assumptions, doesn't that suggest that I am going to disagree with your conclusions?

Ben M.

[William Schryver]

I'm not understanding why this is difficult to understand.

Which would create stronger evidence for Joseph reading a line and not coming up with the line himself:

1. the dictation line beginning mid-sense; having a change of sense in the middle and ending before a sense is over

ex. "of goodly parents therefor i was taught in"

2. the dictation line containing a whole sense-line

ex. "therefore i was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father."

Number 2 obviously makes the stronger suggestion that Joseph is simply reading the text and not in any sense translating it himself.

Which would make it seem more like Joseph was coming up with each line himself, and not reading something that was given to him:

1. the dictation line beginning mid-sense; having a change of sense in the middle and ending before a sense is over

ex. "of goodly parents therefor i was taught in"

2. the dictation line containing a whole sense-line

ex. "therefore i was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father."

I don't think a text is capable of demonstrating this. In both cases, we would suppose that Joseph (either as reader or as the author) has before him the complete sense.

William, here is a fun little game you can play to test it out yourself. Find someone near you and try ask them to dictate a story that you are going to tell them. Tell him the story sentence by sentence (as in #2) , waiting for him to write it down each sentence before you give him the next one. See if you can do it. I'm guessing this wouldn't be too difficult for you.

And now we see the real issue here. In what way does this actually resemble the process that occurred with the Book of Mormon? In other words, ultimately, what are your assumptions that you bring to the table with regards to the translation process? If I don't agree with your assumptions, doesn't that suggest that I am going to disagree with your conclusions?

Ben M.

I'm not understanding why this is difficult to understand.

[the narrator]

Number 2 obviously makes the stronger suggestion that Joseph is simply reading the text and not in any sense translating it himself.

How does this possibly make

a stronger case? Try speaking one sentence

at a time. Now try speaking with two separate

halves of sentences combined together.

(these lines would all be #1, and the difficulty of it would point to Joseph reading lines)

As far as the distinction you wish to make, number 2 also could represent Joseph having come up with it the same as Joseph reading it.

Number 2 is far more likely to show that Joseph

was making it up himself. It is far far

far easier to come up / translate one sense-line

sentence at a time than it is to come

up with dictation lines that split and combines

sections of a sentence.

(these would all be #1)

I don't think a text is capable of demonstrating this. In both cases, we would suppose that Joseph (either as reader or as the author) has before him the complete sense.

Not at all.

One doesn't have to conclude that Joseph reads any lines before him

to come up with one sense line at a time.

I am totally capable of doing this

without having any text in front of me.

Do you think I have to be able to read this

before typing or saying it.

(these would all be #2, and would point out that it is easy to do without having to read anything. Thus, the sense-lines do not lead to the conclusion of reading a text)

And now we see the real issue here. In what way does this actually resemble the process that occurred with the Book of Mormon? In other words, ultimately, what are your assumptions that you bring to the table with regards to the translation process? If I don't agree with your assumptions, doesn't that suggest that I am going to disagree with your conclusions?

I am proposing no assumptions.

I am just saying that the evidence of Skousen's sense lines

do not show that Joseph was reading anything.

(#2)

[rameumptom]

Why?

I'm serious.

Why not? I'm serious.

Stating someone is being nonsensical without actually discussing why is rather nonsensical, btw.

Joseph Smith shows that documents were a catalyst for him. He "translated" the Book of Mormon while the plates sat closed on the table! How is that a translation????

He added scores of verses and chapters to his "translation" of the Bible, including info on Adam, Enoch, Melchizedek and Joseph. How is that a translation?

The papyri we have (and are illustrated in the PGP) are known as portions of the Book of Breathings. While there are definitely things that tie it to the Book of Abraham, there is no literal translation to be made from the papyri. It was all used as a catalyst for God to reveal.

Yes, Skousen shows evidence that at least some of the BoM was read (not necessarily translated) word for word via the U&T and seer stone. However, there are evidences also, such as what Brant Gardner has given, showing a loose translation in many areas.

[William Schryver]

Stating someone is being nonsensical without actually discussing why is rather nonsensical, btw.

Actually, both Ben and I have demonstrated the ways in which the narrator

[Benjamin McGuire]

Narrator -

Let's back up just a little bit. Much earlier, you wrote this:

According to Skousen, though, this isn't the case. Rather each dictation line is a sense line which is either a full sentence or a full subclause of a larger sentences. Rather than being evidence of Joseph reading, this could easily be seen as Joseph simply dictating a sentence or clause of a sentence at a time.

From Skousen's book The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text pgs. xlii - xliii:

Because the original manuscript itself was a transcription of words that were spoken by Joseph Smith, it consists of long, chapter-length blocks of text with no sentence breaks or punctuation. Keeping this format would make the book difficult to read. And it would also misrepresent the act of dictation, which was done by phrases and clauses, as evidenced by scribal corrections as well as by those places in the text where one scribe took over for another - always at the end of a phrase or clause. I make no claim that the sense-lines adopted here represent Joseph's actual dictation breaks, but the first verbalization of the text would have sounded something like the result of reading the sense-lines out loud.

Ok, so, from there, we get your comments here:

However, after seeing what the 'sense-lines' that Skousen proposes as evidence of him reading a text that was strictly given to him, I took quite the opposite position--they seem to be evidence of lines being constructed one and a time and in succession rather than being something that was read. If full-stop (periods) and changes of sense appeared in the middle of the lines that Joseph was reading, it would count as evidence of Joseph reading a text that was purely given to him. That these do not occur in any of the dictation lines, seems to me to be evidence that he was not simply reading a text that was shown to him.

Ok, So a couple of points:

1: I don't think Skousen uses his sense lines in the way that you suggest he does. That is, Skousen's evidence is not the rather arbitrary sense lines he produces (as he himself admits). Skousen's evidence comes in the way that scribal corrections occur, and in some places, the transitions between scribes.

2: We get back to my comment about assumptions. For me, when reading aloud from a text, I don't simply read X number of words and stop. I don't, for example, chop up a text badly, when I read at night to my youngest son. If you are reading something to someone, you are naturally going to read it in chunks that make sense (which is what I see here) - you aren't arbitrarily going to stop in mid-sentence and then pick it up again. This is where these ideas of assumptions come in. I would suspect that if Joseph is reading a text (through the seer stone, or the Urim and Thummim), he is reading a piece of text, pausing to let his scribe finish writing it, and then moving on. But, it seems quite natural to me that he would read it in phrases or sentences, and not merely X number of words. This is, after all, a reading process, not merely a dictation process. In order for you to make the kind of argument you make, you also have to be assuming something about the translation process itself - i.e. how Joseph is delivering the text to his scribes - and these assumptions are not at all clear from your arguments. I don't think your position can be maintained without exploring your assumptions for us, since in my mind, what we have is not evidence of something being constructed on the spot in the least. I think that the kind of evidence you are proposing for this notion is completely ambiguous on the question you are trying to answer with it - and only by making these assumptions which you make (but haven't provided) can this argument seem reasonable to you.

Ben M.

[Lamanite]

As far as I

[William Schryver]

I challenge Skousen's findings, inasmuch as I understand his views correctly.

That being said. Skousen's theory that the BoM text is evidence of a very tight translation only can be challenged with the text itself. (if the use of "only" as an absolute distorts Skousens position then I have no problem retracting the challenge) There is no way to explain 1 Nephi 19,20 without employing some type of "loose" or "conceptualized" process. In these chapters the historical figure Nephi claims that he is teaching "them" Isaiah 48. This book (Isa. 48) was not written at that time. So I can't understand how a tight translation produced a text that had a main character making reference to a book that didn't even exist yet and then insert the anachronistic right into the BoM!

Yes, I challenge Skousen's findings as they pertain to Deutero Isaiah in 1Nephi 19,20.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Not only am I not convinced that so-called "Deutero-Isaiah" was written after Nephi et al. boarded their ship, but even if it were, I'm not convinced that Skousen's argument is threatened. The way I see it, there are several other possibilities to account for Nephi citing portions of "Deutero-Isaiah" to his people. Indeed, I am thoroughly convinced that Nephi did teach those words to his people. How he obtained those words will no doubt remain a mystery until "the books are opened," but I am persuaded that Nephi did quote those words to his people.

[Lamanite]

Not only am I not convinced that so-called "Deutero-Isaiah" was written after Nephi et al. boarded their ship, but even if it were, I'm not convinced that Skousen's argument is threatened. The way I see it, there are several other possibilities to account for Nephi citing portions of "Deutero-Isaiah" to his people. Indeed, I am thoroughly convinced that Nephi did teach those words to his people. How he obtained those words will no doubt remain a mystery until "the books are opened," but I am persuaded that Nephi did quote those words to his people.

I don't know.....but I believe.

words I can accept.

Big UP!

Lamanite