Brant Gardner'S New Book: Believe The Hype

[One Clear Voice]

nackhadlow,

How does one obtain a copy of this book? Who is the publisher? A Google search led me only to this forum and to references to his upcoming FAIR conference talk of the same title.

keep checking your doorstep?

[zerinus]

Royal Skousen has written a very clear and concise comment on this: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=7&num=1&id=167

Thank you, that is a good article. I agree with its conclusions.

On a different note why is it always necessary to denigrate people and their work? Zerinus, since you've been here I have yet to see you post a positive comment on someone's material. If I'm wrong I'm sorry, but I don't think so.

I am not "denigrating" anybody's work. Please explain how I was denigrating somebody's work.

Even if I did, so what? That would be my personal opinion. Other people, including the author, would be free to express other opinions if they like. If people are confident of their work, why should that be a problem?

Edited July 24, 2011 by zerinus

[zerinus]

Huh? When did he say that?

Frankly, Joseph does seem to have told people how it worked. There are many sources close to Joseph Smith that describe him literally reading the English text off of his seer stone.

From a talk by Elder Neal A. Maxwell:

Many who read the Book of Mormon understandably desire to know more about its coming forth, including the actual process of translation. This was certainly so with faithful and loyal Hyrum Smith. Upon inquiring, Hyrum was told by the Prophet Joseph that “it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon” and that “it was not expedient for him to relate these things” (

History of the Church,

1:220). Thus what we do know about the actual coming forth of the Book of Mormon is adequate, but it is not comprehensive.

Source

.

[David T]

What impact, if any, do you think Brant's book will have on the Book of Abraham debates?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Our of respect for Brant, I don't want to preempt his FAIR presentation - which is why I'm being vague, and not speaking too much until I post my full review, probably the day of FAIR conference.

The Book of Abraham isn't covered in the book, but I certainly took away some concepts that would allow for a re-cast functional translation of the Papyri, but superimposed on Abrahamic cast members.

While Brant may disagree with my thoughts on the matter (I don't know his positions on BoA material), I can certain see applying aspects of his Book of Mormon theory (which definitely posits an authentic translation of an original ancient Nephite source text) with the concept of Joseph's attempts to functionally translate the meaning of an Egyptian record (the original Ptolemaic-era meaning of which was presented in raw form through revelation), mixed with his personal attempts to 'work it out' to retrofit it and place it into an Abrahamic narrative context, in tune with his contemporary expectations concerning the history and development of Priesthood, as well as harmonizing it and updating it ( a la the JST) with his own modern understanding. It would almost be a complimentary twist on some of Nibley's work, and in many ways, the culmination of all of Joseph's previous modes of 'translation' work. It would definitely be a combo of his Book of Mormon translation work, and his JST work of recontectualizing and revision.

Edited July 25, 2011 by nackhadlow

[David T]

From a talk by Elder Neal A. Maxwell:

Many who read the Book of Mormon understandably desire to know more about its coming forth, including the actual process of translation. This was certainly so with faithful and loyal Hyrum Smith. Upon inquiring, Hyrum was told by the Prophet Joseph that “it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon” and that “it was not expedient for him to relate these things” (

History of the Church,

1:220). Thus what we do know about the actual coming forth of the Book of Mormon is adequate, but it is not comprehensive.

Source

.

Thanks, Zerinus. I see that the source for History of the Church's footnote is the Far West Record:

From October 25, 1831, in a General Conference:

Br. Hyrum Smith said that he thought best that the information of the coming forth of the book of Mormon be related by Joseph himself to the Elders present that all might know for themselves.Br. Joseph Smith jr. said that it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of thecoming forth of the book of Mormon, & also said that it was not expedient for him to relate these things &c.

While I acknowledge the quote, and thank you for presenting it, I also note that there were many things that "were not intended" to be publicly discussed and specifically taught by the Missionary Elders to the world as part of their message in 1831 that became expedient and important later on. For example, in other places, the Missionaries were specifically told not to share The Vision (of degrees of glory) as part of their missionary message, in addition to other modern revelations. That changed.

It was seen as distracting from what was seen as the core message at hand, and would be a turn-off for some in investigating the claims of restored authority. As just telling people not to share info they did have didn't always work, in some cases, it would have been expedient just not to share the info to begin with. And some things still never were expedient, but people in confidence blabbed about them anyway... and in some cases, altered their memories by degrees in the process of retelling the story.

[Brant Gardner]

Our of respect for Brant, I don't want to preempt his FAIR presentation - which is why I'm being vague, and not speaking too much until I post my full review, probably the day of FAIR conference.

Please don't worry about my presentation. I suspect that the two audiences won't overlap a lot, and for those who do, the chance to ask questions will be the value of the FAIR presentation. If, as I expect, the book is available at the beginning of the conference, there may be some speed readers who get the juicy parts before I speak anyway .

[Brant Gardner]

While Brant may disagree with my thoughts on the matter (I don't know his positions on BoA material), I can certain see applying aspects of his Book of Mormon theory (which definitely posits an authentic translation of an original ancient Nephite source text) with the concept of Joseph's attempts to functionally translate the meaning of an Egyptian record (the original Ptolemaic-era meaning of which was presented in raw form through revelation), mixed with his personal attempts to 'work it out' to retrofit it and place it into an Abrahamic narrative context, in tune with his contemporary expectations concerning the history and development of Priesthood, as well as harmonizing it and updating it ( a la the JST) with his own modern understanding. It would almost be a complimentary twist on some of Nibley's work, and in many ways, the culmination of all of Joseph's previous modes of 'translation' work. It would definitely be a combo of his Book of Mormon translation work, and his JST work of recontectualizing and revision.

I don' see Joseph using completely different translation methods for any of his translation work. As far as I can tell, until he started learning Hebrew (and German), he didn't know much about other languages and probably less about the nuances of translation. Nevertheless, I think that evidence other than the translation method establishes the fact of translation without telling us how it was done.

Therefore, without having made nearly the study of the Book of Abraham that I have of the Book of Mormon, I would expect that there was a similar relationship between meaning and English text. What I cannot say is how that translation of authentic information specifically related to what was on the scrolls. Since Joseph translated the Book of Mormon without having it before him for most, if not all, of the translation, I don't see the scrolls as necessarily more than a trigger. However, since I am just speculating in print without the requisite background work, please take all of that with as large a grain of salt as you wish.

[David T]

I don' see Joseph using completely different translation methods for any of his translation work. As far as I can tell, until he started learning Hebrew (and German), he didn't know much about other languages and probably less about the nuances of translation. Nevertheless, I think that evidence other than the translation method establishes the fact of translation without telling us how it was done.

Therefore, without having made nearly the study of the Book of Abraham that I have of the Book of Mormon, I would expect that there was a similar relationship between meaning and English text. What I cannot say is how that translation of authentic information specifically related to what was on the scrolls. Since Joseph translated the Book of Mormon without having it before him for most, if not all, of the translation, I don't see the scrolls as necessarily more than a trigger. However, since I am just speculating in print without the requisite background work, please take all of that with as large a grain of salt as you wish.

I think I agree that the 'method' was the same, but to clarify, I think I meant more as to what sort of relationship there was to an original source text. That while the Book of Mormon was based on an authentic source text (the meaning of which was 'deposited' in Joseph's pre-language mind, which was then 'translated' by Joseph's brain from the pre-language meaning to something he could consciously work with and 'see'), the JST, while resulting in part from such an inspired 'deposit' , it was not as much a deposit of the meaning of past documents, but light and knowledge that came in response to study and pondering - which Joseph then inserted in the narrative framework of the KJV. It's the recasting of the majority of the deposit into figures they were not originally attributed/linked to that is a key distinction.

Now, I recognize that to Joseph, it may have appeared to (and understood by) him to be the same thing.

So I guess I am talking about more of a discussion of the relationship of the physical historic source document (or lack thereof) than to the means of translation, which I agree with you is similar (Joseph wasn't translating from the document, he was translating from an inspired deposit of knowledge given as the 'meaning' of the document).

The difference being is that the 'meaning' of the BofM that Joseph received was directly functionally related to those individuals and events historically recorded on the plates. Whereas I believe that 'meaning' given for the Papyri was more conceptual and translated into a biblical context, in a way that would lead to application in the context of Joseph's direction of Church and Priesthood doctrinal development.

I see the catalyst papyri as a ptolemaic-era ritual text, and with no connection to any Abrahamic autograph. Not on any missing scrolls, either. I see the conceptual application and use of the material being communicated to Joseph, which his mind translated to a biblical-based context in line to where his thoughts on speculative provenance of the original material currently were.

Of course, this may just seem rational to me because of my own personal experience. In fact, Brant's theory resonated especially strong with my past experience that I've been trying to understand and work out for a few years now.

Edited July 25, 2011 by nackhadlow

[David T]

By the way, Brant, I have the first two volumes of your BoM commentary being shipped to me this week. Very much looking forward to exploring them. Thanks for the great work in getting your thoughts and experience out there.

[phaedrus ut]

Brant, it's been quite a while but you once made reference to having a theory to account for the KJV in the BOM without putting the KJV in the room with Joseph. Is this something you cover in the book or your upcoming FAIR presentation?

Phaedrus

[David T]

Brant, it's been quite a while but you once made reference to having a theory to account for the KJV in the BOM without putting the KJV in the room with Joseph. Is this something you cover in the book or your upcoming FAIR presentation?

Phaedrus

This is covered in his book.

[Brant Gardner]

Brant, it's been quite a while but you once made reference to having a theory to account for the KJV in the BOM without putting the KJV in the room with Joseph. Is this something you cover in the book or your upcoming FAIR presentation?

Phaedrus

In the book, but probably not expressly in the FAIR presentation. However, if you show up you can ask the question and I promise to answer it.

Frankly, I am still trying to figure out how to do a 35 minute presentation. I am guessing that I need to leave time for question. There should be one or two.

[wenglund]

Nack and Brant,

I very much appreciate you responding to my question.

Part of the reason I asked was during past discussion on the Book of Abraham with Chris Smith, and specifically regards the typical mode of translation, Chris mentioned evidence that Joseph Smith Jr. had formulated an alphabet in relation to the Book of Mormon, presumably not wholly unlike what was developed in relation to the Book of Abraham. The implication being, that the alphabets may have been instrumental in the production of both books. Is there anything to this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 25, 2011 by wenglund

[zerinus]

Thanks, Zerinus. I see that the source for History of the Church's footnote is the Far West Record:

From October 25, 1831, in a General Conference:

Br. Hyrum Smith said that he thought best that the information of the coming forth of the book of Mormon be related by Joseph himself to the Elders present that all might know for themselves.Br. Joseph Smith jr. said that it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of thecoming forth of the book of Mormon, & also said that it was not expedient for him to relate these things &c.

While I acknowledge the quote, and thank you for presenting it, I also note that there were many things that "were not intended" to be publicly discussed and specifically taught by the Missionary Elders to the world as part of their message in 1831 that became expedient and important later on. For example, in other places, the Missionaries were specifically told not to share The Vision (of degrees of glory) as part of their missionary message, in addition to other modern revelations. That changed.

It was seen as distracting from what was seen as the core message at hand, and would be a turn-off for some in investigating the claims of restored authority. As just telling people not to share info they did have didn't always work, in some cases, it would have been expedient just not to share the info to begin with. And some things still never were expedient, but people in confidence blabbed about them anyway... and in some cases, altered their memories by degrees in the process of retelling the story.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that there are details about the translation of the Book of Mormon that Joseph Smith chose not to disclose to the world or to the Church, neither at that time nor at any other time; therefore any claim to know what that could be will be speculative and unfounded. There are things we know and things that we don't know. We can draw valid tentative conclusions from what we do know, as Elder Maxwell and Royal Skowsen have done correctly to a large measure; but any attempt to know beyond that will be presumptuous and unproductive.

[Chris Smith]

Part of the reason I asked was during past discussion on the Book of Abraham with Chris Smith, and specifically regards the typical mode of translation, Chris mentioned evidence that Joseph Smith Jr. had formulated an alphabet in relation to the Book of Mormon, presumably not wholly unlike what was developed in relation to the Book of Abraham. The implication being, that the alphabets may have been instrumental in the production of both books. Is there anything to this?

An alphabet to the BoM is mentioned in both Lucy's biography and Joseph Smith Sr.'s interview with Fayette Lapham. However, I don't believe the alphabet was actually used to produce the BoM. More like just an idea JS toyed with, and then later picked up again in connection with the BoA.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Chris Smith

[David T]

any claim to know what that could be will be speculative and unfounded....We can draw valid tentative conclusions from what we do know, as Elder Maxwell and Royal Skowsen have done correctly to a large measure; but any attempt to know beyond that will be presumptuous and unproductive.

While Brant's work is certainly speculative, having actually read it, I would absolutely not consider it "unfounded", "presumptuous", or "unproductive". In fact, his work directly responds to some admitted gaps in Royal Skousen's conclusions. If you appreciate Royal's work and conclusions, I think you would find this of interest.

It definitely changed my mind on some aspects that I was pretty confident I wouldn't have my mind changed on. For me, that's almost as high a compliment I can give to a book or idea.

Edited July 25, 2011 by nackhadlow

[wenglund]

However, I don't believe the alphabet was actually used to produce the BoM. More like just an idea JS toyed with, and then later picked up again in connection with the BoA.

Thanks for sharing this Chris,

Does your current position here differ from what you may have proposed several years back--not that it would be problematic if it does differ?

I am asking so as to make sure I didn't misunderstand you before.

If I recall correctly, some time ago, as one of several challenges to the proposition that the KEP were the "modus operandi" for translating the BoA, I mentioned that such translation "modus operandi" didn't fit the typical mode/pattern of translation used by Joseph in relation to other ancient scripture (the BoM and the JST) produced prior to the BoA. I thought that you brought up the alleged BoM alphabet as a counter-argument suggesting that an alphabet may have been used to translate/produce the BoM. Did I misunderstand you then?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Chris Smith]

Does your current position here differ from what you may have proposed several years back?

No.

I thought that you brought up the alleged BoM alphabet as a counter-argument suggesting that an alphabet may have been used to translate/produce the BoM. Did I misunderstand you then?

I was saying only that Joseph seems to have considered using an alphabet to translate the Book. Had Anthon translated the characters on the "alphabet" transcript brought to him by Harris, Joseph might well have made use of Anthon's findings.

[wenglund]

No.

I was saying only that Joseph seems to have considered using an alphabet to translate the Book.

I appreciate the clarification. Is there something specific in the citations you mentioned which indicate that Joseph considered using the alphabet to translate the BoM? If so, would you quote it? (Forgive me if you mentioned this before)

Had Anthon translated the characters on the "alphabet" transcript brought to him by Harris, Joseph might well have made use of Anthon's findings.

Made use how exactly? To translate the BoM?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[zerinus]

While Brant's work is certainly speculative, having actually read it, I would absolutely not consider it "unfounded", "presumptuous", or "unproductive". In fact, his work directly responds to some admitted gaps in Royal Skousen's conclusions. If you appreciate Royal's work and conclusions, I think you would find this of interest.

It definitely changed my mind on some aspects that I was pretty confident I wouldn't have my mind changed on. For me, that's almost as high a compliment I can give to a book or idea.

I was not commenting on Brant's book, but on your post. I have not read his book, and I have no comments to make on it until I do.

Edited July 25, 2011 by zerinus

[Chris Smith]

Here are the two citations:

Lucy Mack Smith Preliminary History Manuscript, p. 108 (EMD 1:343)

: “It soon became necessary to take some measure to accomplish the translation of the record into English but he was instructed to take off a fac simile of the

alphabet Egyptian

characters <composing the alphabet which were called reformed Egyptian> Alphabetically and send them to all the learned men that he could find and ask them for the translation of the same. Joseph was very solicitous about the work but as yet no means had come into his hands of accomplishing

the same

it.”

Joseph Smith, Sr. 1830 interview (EMD 1:462-63)

: “…the remaining pages [of the gold plates] were closely written over in characters of some unknown tongue, the last containing the alphabet of this unknown language. …

ome of them, …[Joseph] showed to the learned…”

Apparently Joseph copied an alphabet of characters from the plates, then submitted them to the learned for translation. Why this was done is not explicitly stated, but Lucy strongly implies it was for use in translating the Book of Mormon. This, of course, parallels the later use of the EAG in translating the BoA.

Peace,

-Chris

[wenglund]

Here are the two citations:

Lucy Mack Smith Preliminary History Manuscript, p. 108 (EMD 1:343)

: “It soon became necessary to take some measure to accomplish the translation of the record into English but he was instructed to take off a fac simile of the

alphabet Egyptian

characters <composing the alphabet which were called reformed Egyptian> Alphabetically and send them to all the learned men that he could find and ask them for the translation of the same. Joseph was very solicitous about the work but as yet no means had come into his hands of accomplishing

the same

it.”

Joseph Smith, Sr. 1830 interview (EMD 1:462-63)

: “…the remaining pages [of the gold plates] were closely written over in characters of some unknown tongue, the last containing the alphabet of this unknown language. …

ome of them, …[Joseph] showed to the learned…”

Thanks.

Apparently Joseph copied an alphabet of characters from the plates, then submitted them to the learned for translation. Why this was done is not explicitly stated, but Lucy strongly implies it was for use in translating the Book of Mormon.

Isn't that interesting. I read Lucy's comments as implying that the intended translation of the so-called "alphabet" by the learned, was separate/apart from the "measure to accomplish the translation of the record" by Joseph Smith. And, from what I can tell, the historical record, particularly the official history (see JSH vs 61 - 65) appears to support my interpretation and contravene yours. Evidently, in January of 1828 Joseph translated some of the characters using the "Urim and Thummim." It wasn't until February that Harris arrived in Harmony, PA, and then took the characters to Anthon.

It should be noted that Lucy and her husband resided in Palmyr at the time, and were not directly privy to the early translation period, and so their accounts above are at best second hand, whereas Joseph's account in the official history is first hand.

This, of course, parallels the later use of the EAG in translating the BoA.

Of course. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 26, 2011 by wenglund

[Chris Smith]

And, from what I can tell, the historical record, particularly the official history (see JSH vs 61 - 65) appears to support my interpretation and contravene yours. Evidently, in January of 1828 Joseph translated some of the characters using the "Urim and Thummim." It wasn't until February that Harris arrived in Harmony, PA, and then took the characters to Anthon.

There are a half dozen accounts (including Joseph's own 1832 History) that imply Joseph had no means of translating the record when Harris went with the characters to Anthon, but I actually agree with you that this creates difficulties. Possibly the implication that Joseph yet had no means of translating was just a post hoc way of bending the narrative to make it fit Isaiah 29:12.

There's also the problem of why Harris took the characters to New York in the first place. Lucy and Joseph Sr. make Joseph the initiator, but Joseph's own 1832 account makes Harris the initiator.

So it's hard to know how the Alphabet fits into all of this. All I know is that Lucy and Joseph Sr. do seem to connect the alphabet with the search for a way to translate the plates. Nor am I the only one who has drawn this inference. I got the idea from Rough Stone Rolling.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Chris Smith

[wenglund]

There are a half dozen accounts (including Joseph's own 1832 History) that imply Joseph had no means of translating the record when Harris went with the characters to Anthon, but I actually agree with you that this creates difficulties. Possibly the implication that Joseph yet had no means of translating was just a post hoc way of bending the narrative to make it fit Isaiah 29:12.

There's also the problem of why Harris took the characters to New York in the first place. Lucy and Joseph Sr. make Joseph the initiator, but Joseph's own 1832 account makes Harris the initiator.

So it's hard to know how the Alphabet fits into all of this. All I know is that Lucy and Joseph Sr. do seem to connect the alphabet with the search for a way to translate the plates. Nor am I the only one who has drawn this inference. I got the idea from Rough Stone Rolling.

Somewhat conflicting historical data can make it difficult to nail down what may have happened in the distant past. Realizing this ought to encourage reasonable minds to be all the more tolerant of opposing conclusions, and less dogmatic. Accordingly, while I may conclude otherwise, I acknowledge the reasonableness of what you suggest on this specific point.

I would be interested, though, to learn what, if anything, Brant has to say on this matter. Hopefully, I don't have to wait until the FAIR Conference to find out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 26, 2011 by wenglund

[David T]

Somewhat conflicting historical data can make it difficult to nail down what may have happened in the distant past. Realizing this ought to encourage reasonable minds to be all the more tolerant of opposing conclusions, and less dogmatic. Accordingly, while I may conclude otherwise, I acknowledge the reasonableness of what you suggest on this specific point.

I would be interested, though, to learn what, if anything, Brant has to say on this matter. Hopefully, I don't have to wait until the FAIR Conference to find out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Brant, in his book, appears to agree that Joseph had a transcript of the characters brought to Anton (and others), not his own translation, and that as the understanding of the significance of the event changed in light of seeing a possible connection with the Isaiah text, the language describing the event evolved over time, resulting in the somewhat contradictory 1838 version which has become standard. Brant, please correct me if I mischaracterized this.

Brant takes a significant amount of time in the book discussing the culture and development of the telling of the stories surrounding the translation. It's quite fascinating.

Edited July 26, 2011 by nackhadlow