From Idaho State Journal

[Matt Andrews]

Daniel Peterson wrote:

When the Nephite equivalent of the English word horse appeared on the plates, the translation uses the English word horse.

and:

Whether the Nephites classified such animals precisely as you would, whether they distinguished between horse and non-horse in exactly the same way that a twenty-first century English speaker does, is not entirely certain.

An attempt to clarify, both for Just Curious, and myself:

First point: Daniel is suggesting that Nephites may have called something like tapirs by the same word they used for horse. The same way we in English might use the word 'switch' for several items. So someone translating from english into a language with different words for the switch for a light and the switch for a railroad track, might pick the wrong one if it wasn't clear from the context.

(Is that correct, Daniel?)

Second point: If we are to believe it is possible that the Nephites called something a horse that we would not, then it is possible other words that we think mean one thing, may actually mean another, too.

Perhaps cow is not actually a cow, but an animal that the Nephites did not distinguish from the animal that we call a cow.

A chariot may not either kind of chariot we think of today, but something the Nephites thought was similar.

Is that the gist of the idea?

[Daniel Peterson]

OK please tell me who revealed the words to Joseph, because I see two things that are confusing, first we see translation and transliteration

Do you not understand the difference between translation and transliteration?

If that is the problem, you might consider consulting a dictionary.

But, just to help out, I'll give you an example:

A. bi ismi-llaahi al-rahmaan al-rahiim al-hamdu li-llaahi rabb al-

[Guest Just Curious]

They were revealed by means of the Urim and Thummim or the seerstone.

And who revealed them or by whose power were they revealed to Joseph?

[Guest Just Curious]

Do you not understand the difference between translation and transliteration?

If that is the problem, you might consider consulting a dictionary.

I just done did do cunsulted my dictionary on it aint are isnt you proud of me...

[Daniel Peterson]

Is that the gist of the idea?

That's the gist of the idea. On the whole, it's reasonable to assume that translated words have essentially the same meaning to us that their underlying originals had to their original audience. It will seldom be precisely the same, given the different history and culture that it expresses -- the greater the distance in time, space, culture, and linguistics the more such differences will matter -- but, although something is always lost in translation, it can be close enough to be serviceable. However, when a real problem appears (as with Book of Mormon "horses"), variations in a word's semantic range are among possible explanations to be considered.

For example, although we certainly don't classify a potato as an apple, German has done so: Alongside the German word Kartoffel, denoting a potato, there is also the word Erdapfel, literally meaning "earth apple."

[Guest Just Curious]

They were revealed by means of the Urim and Thummim or the seerstone.

So were the words revealed visually or was it something that Joseph was "inspired" to write? In other words how did he know what to write when the words were revealed by the Urim and Thummim or seerstone..and are the two the same thing or different things

[Daniel Peterson]

They were revealed by means of the Urim and Thummim or the seerstone.

And who revealed them or by whose power were they revealed to Joseph?

I assume that you're already familiar with the Latter-day Saint belief that this translation occurred "by the gift and power of God." (See the Title Page to the Book of Mormon, and compare 1 Nephi 13:35.) So I suspect that you imagine that you're leading me toward some trap or other.

Please don't leave out of your preparations the statement of the Lord, given on 1 November 1831 and recorded at Doctrine and Covenants 1:24, that his revelations to Joseph Smith and others "were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language."

[Daniel Peterson]

So were the words revealed visually or was it something that Joseph was "inspired" to write?  In other words how did he know what to write when the words were revealed by the Urim and Thummim or seerstone..and are the two the same thing or different things

Are you really not familiar with the basic data and documents relevant to the translation process? If so, there are some excellent resources (at FARMS and elsewhere) to help you gain an understanding of the necessary facts.

The words seem to have appeared, visually, under inspiration. One doesn't have to choose between the two as if they were mutually exclusive.

The Urim and Thummim are distinct objects, but they share a similar nature. That is, they're both rocks and Joseph somehow received the text of the Book of Mormon by looking at or into them.

[Matt Andrews]

Daniel Peterson wrote:

That's the gist of the idea.  On the whole, it's reasonable to assume that translated words have essentially the same meaning to us that their underlying originals had to their original audience.  It will seldom be precisely the same, given the different history and culture that it expresses -- the greater the distance in time, space, culture, and linguistics the more such differences will matter -- but, although something is always lost in translation, it can be close enough to be serviceable. However, when a real problem appears (as with Book of Mormon "horses"), variations in a word's semantic range are among possible explanations to be considered.

I'm glad I understood.

Now, this is going to sound a little glib, but basically, if anything in the Book of Mormon seems to not fit with what actually happened in the Americas at the relevant time, we could explain it away with this same idea?

I mean, if, in the future, it becomes possible to show that there were no earthquakes anywhere in the Americas at the time the Book of Mormon says there were, we could say, "well, maybe they meant massive sinkholes, which could produce the same effects as the 'earthquakes' mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

It would take someone more linguistically skilled than I, but maybe you could use similar reasoning to say that 'battle' doesn't really mean battle, 'sword' doesn't really mean sword, 'Jesus' doesn't really mean OUR Jesus, as we understand it, 'steel' doesn't mean steel, 'gold' doesn't mean gold, and 'God' doesn't really mean God?

I mean, it is reasonable to assume that translated words have essentially the same meaning to us as their underlying originals had to their audience, but if a problem appears with any of these, variations in these words' semantic ranges could be considered?

Suppose Christ appears next week. I ask Him about the Book of Mormon. Suppose He says: "Nope, that isn't Me. I'm pretty sure if I'd gone to America I would remember it." Then I could still defend the Book of Mormon as an inspired translation, because maybe what the NEPHITES were refering to as Jesus, wasn't really, you know, JESUS, like we think of it.

(Okay, that sounded a LOT glib.)

I don't mean to be a jerk about this, I just wonder if this kind of 'defense' opens more holes than it closes.

(But I agree that 'horses' does present a problem.)

[Daniel Peterson]

Now, this is going to sound a little glib, but basically, if anything in the Book of Mormon seems to not fit with what actually happened in the Americas at the relevant time, we could explain it away with this same idea?

There is a considerable amount of background material, drawn from anthropology and comparative linguistics, relating to animal-naming conventions. We didn't just make this up. It isn't arbitrary, and it isn't merely ad hoc.

I've just been through a very long conversation on the topic with Just Curious within the past week or two, and have absolutely no desire to repeat it. You can probably find it by doing a search for the word tapir. The current issue of the FARMS Review (16/1) contains an article, written by me with Matthew Roper, that, in one portion, treats this topic with specific reference to the horse.

[rabanes]

Dan,

I hope to answer you, and Roper, by tomorrow.

RAbanes

[Bill Hamblin]

My Dear Professor Peterson,

Are you still arguing about horses?

I believe you have explained your position over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over.

Yet they still don't get it; they never will.

Your position, if I have understood you correctly--and since you've only repeated it two dozen times I may still not yet quite have the gist--is NOT that Joseph Smith mistakenly translated an unknown Nephite term into the English word "horse," but that the Nephite term "horse" (whatever that may have been), was linguistically and culturally used by the Nephites to encompass a broader range of creatures than the modern "horse."

The BOM is thus a correct translation of a term that had a different semantic domain in Nephite culture than "horse" does in early twenty-first century American English.

Have I understood you correctly, or could you maybe explain it to me again?

Has any of the anti-Mormons here repeated your actual argument back to you accurately?

Befuddledly Yours,

Professor Hamblin

[Daniel Peterson]

My Dear Professor Hamblin:

Yes, we're still going around and around and around and around and around about horses. It's rather relaxing, in its own way, like the rhythmic clop-clop of tapir hooves. With the passage of time, one can simply turn off one's mind. (After all, some on the other side clearly seem to have turned theirs off.)

I think you've got it, Professor Hamblin. Though I really would like to explain it to you again. And again. And again. And yet again.

Sincerely,

Professor Peterson

[Bill Hamblin]

My Dear Professor Peterson,

You wrote:

I think you've got it, Professor Hamblin. Though I really would like to explain it to you again. And again. And again. And yet again.

Feel free. I can ignore you just as easily as I ignore the anti-Mormons.

I must emphasize that I am not asking that the anti-Mormons ACCEPT the argument. I would be immensely satisfied if just one of them could demonstrate they have UNDERSTOOD the argument by accurately rephrasing it and engaging its evidence and analysis directly. But alas, I fear that is far too much to hope for. Instead we must endure yet another pass on the Internet dreary-go-round.

Yours in Dizzy Distress,

Professor Hamblin

[juliann]

NOTE TO POSTERS/READERS: I will not be answering posts by either Julianne or Nighthawke. They seem to be interested in little more than fighting, creating wounds, misrepresenting/misusing my words, causing trouble where there need be none, and being just plain old nasty. Please do not think that my unwillingness to engage them has anything to do with the substance of their posts. Indeed, their posts to me usually have no substance

.

Sheesh, Richard...you carry this around as a tagline and call us nasty? (If you are going to wear me, try spelling my name right. ) And whatever you do...do not, I repeat...do not inform yourself of the mingling of scholars at Claremont Graduate University. It would not be good for your health.

[Guest Just Curious]

So I suspect that you imagine that you're leading me toward some trap or other.

You know Dan you would really be a much nicer fellow if you quit suspecting me of some sort of ulterior motive on everything I do. It really does get old when you keep doing this to me as this is not the first time you have hinted that I am here only to cause trouble. I have been asking sincere honest questions that I have on this topic to you because I believe you have a good grasp of the topic, however I can see that I am nothing but a bother to you so I will just scrap my attempt to learn more on this subject from you so that I don't lead you into your imaginary trap...

[Guest Just Curious]

I must emphasize that I am not asking that the anti-Mormons ACCEPT the argument. I would be immensely satisfied if just one of them could demonstrate they have UNDERSTOOD the argument by accurately rephrasing it and engaging its evidence and analysis directly.

Which arguement are you referring to and which poster(s) are you referring to?

[Daniel Peterson]

You're perfectly free to go on asking questions, Mr. Curious. I was simply very surprised that, for all your strong opinions on some of these topics, you don't seem to have the relevant basic facts down. It struck me as so very unlikely, in fact, that I had to wonder whether you were up to something else, instead. Since you assure me that you're not, I'm willing to take you at your word.

[Guest Just Curious]

You're perfectly free to go on asking questions, Mr. Curious. I was simply very surprised that, for all your strong opinions on some of these topics, you don't seem to have the relevant basic facts down. It struck me as so very unlikely, in fact, that I had to wonder whether you were up to something else, instead. Since you assure me that you're not, I'm willing to take you at your word.

Evidently you haven't seen the number of threads I have started without having an arguement. There are many I have started on this board or entered after someone else started so that I can gain information on questions I feel are relevant. I understand your experiences with some on this board would lead you to have a predisposed judgement of people who ask questions you feel are "anti" in nature. However just because someone is, pardon the pun, curious about a topic doesn't mean they are up to no good or intending to trap you. Besides...what the heck would I do with you when I caught you

[Daniel Peterson]

Besides...what the heck would I do with you when I caught you   

Catch and release.

[Guest Just Curious]

The words seem to have appeared, visually, under inspiration. One doesn't have to choose between the two as if they were mutually exclusive.

The Urim and Thummim are distinct objects, but they share a similar nature. That is, they're both rocks and Joseph somehow received the text of the Book of Mormon by looking at or into them.

OK let me see if I understand this point. I will rephrase it how I understand and feel free to correct me.

When the plates were not being visually used for the translation process, either the Urim & Thummin or the seerstone were being used, Joseph would through some process of inspiration, visually see the written words and read them off to whomever his scribe was. These written words he was reading were the translated or transliterated words that would correspond to writing on the plates even though the plates were not present. Am I correct in my understanding...if not please show me where I am wrong..

[Guest Just Curious]

Catch and release.

Nahhh...personally being an outdoorsman since about 3 years old, I much perfer the "hook em and cook em" theory...

[Daniel Peterson]

Joseph was unable to translate, so far as I'm aware, without the Urim and Thummim or the seerstone, whether the plates were near or far. The written words he was reading were, so far as he knew or we can know, derived from the writing on the plates.

[Drevan]

For documentation, further discussion, and places to retrieve resources, see my book "Becoming Gods."

Are you promoting an anti mormon book in the middle of your post? Is this your book or did i read your post wrong?

[Guest Just Curious]

The written words he was reading were, so far as he knew or we can know, derived from the writing on the plates.

So would you say those written words he saw on the Urim and Thummim and the seerstone were put there by God for Joseph to read?