Response To Dr. Michael Coe

[Senator]

grapes?

Perhaps, it was some indigenous plant used for wine that they planted in their "vineyards"?

Barley?

[KevinG]

vitis rotundifolia michx. muscadine

Y'all don't know jack about native American hootch! (said in my finest Southern drawl)

The mother vine: http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/122/entry

Edited August 22, 2011 by DaddyG

[Craig Paxton]

Actually, despite your argument that you do understand the problem of translation and cultural context, you demonstrate that you still don't understand the situation. Your assumptions show in the way that you try to describe the argument, that there is an reformed Egyptian word for Tapir, and Joseph inserted horse. The problem not that one-dimensional. It is multi-dimensional. There is the original culture and the translator culture, and then your interpretation. There are the characters on the plates, and what is behind that, and then there is the translation. We don't know whether the characters on the plates described a tapir, or whether the word had an ambiguous history like the term "cattle" which was just shown in its root meaning to refer to "property." What were Ammon's flocks? When Arnold Frieberg paints Ammon with a glistening steel sword, and surrounded by wooly sheep, you have to realize that much of what he imagines comes from his cultural assumptions about what words like "sword" and "flock" mean.

Thanks for being the arbiter of knowing what I know...it's always good to know you have my back. To be honest, I do not believe that Reformed Egyptian (which I consider a fictional language) had a word for Tapir either, it is FARMS that suggests that a BoM horse is a tapir and that Joseph Smith mistranslated a Nephite word written in reformed Egyptian for tapir into horse because he did not know what a tapir was (why do they do this? Because there were no horses in the world that Mormon apologetics is trying to insert the BoM civilizations into). For me it’s all schadenfreude

You can only argue "If wine is not wine and a horse is not a horse and a chariot is not a chariot…" because you still don't understand the that relationship between symbols and the things signified is not an absolute constant like Einstein's speed of light, the same for all observers throughout all time. Word meaning is culturally conditioned and dependent on context. You've seen horse and chariots in Ben Hur. What more is necessary? The realization that Joseph Smith wasn't translating Ben Hur, but the Book of Mormon. And the horses and chariots in the Book of Mormon never do many of the things the horses and chariots in Ben Hur do, and there may be reasons for that. Search for Book of Mormon descriptions of bridles and saddles, or hooves, and horse shoes, and neighing, manes and tails, of pulling plows or riding bareback, or anything that horses commonly did in Joseph Smith's experience. If those kinds of things existed in the text, they would function to constrain the meaning, but they don't exist, and therefore, those kinds of contextualizing constraints don't exist, so we must contextualize elsewhere. In a hundred distinct Book of Mormon wars, chariots never make an appearance in any battle. They only appear briefly as ceremonial transport. The Hebrew word simply means "riding thing." So that constraint on meaning does not exist in the Book of Mormon text. Wheels are possible, but not necessary. All Sorenson and Gardner are doing is pointing out for certain terms, we have fewer constraints and more possibilities than you are willing to recognize. And Sorenson and Gardner do not exclude the possibility that the few references to horses do in fact refer to what we think of as horses. They are just recognizing possibilities that are inherent in any translation across cultures and the fact that we don't necessarily know for certain based on the presence of just the word in a very few places, with fewer details than critical certainty requires.

While I appreciate the ingenuity of this argument...I find it curious that you only use it when confronted with the anachronisms found in the Book of Mormon. Why does it not apply to the rest of the text, the parts you seem to agree with? Assuming that Joseph used the same process of translation throughout the BoM, why is any of it accurate? Shouldn’t you question the validity of every single word? Maybe the same problems that apply to "horse" apply to the rest of the text.

Craig Paxton

Salt Lake City, Utah

[cinepro]

While I appreciate the ingenuity of this argument...I find it curious that you only use it when confronted with the anachronisms found in the Book of Mormon. Why does it not apply to the rest of the text, the parts you seem to agree with? Assuming that Joseph used the same process of translation throughout the BoM, why is any of it accurate? Shouldn’t you question the validity of every single word? Maybe the same problems that apply to "horse" apply to the rest of the text.

Craig Paxton

Salt Lake City, Utah

It would be kind of disappointing to arrive in the hereafter and find out from an upset Mayan sun-god that the Book of Mormon wasn't actually about the mythical Jesus and the atonement, but instead was about him and Joseph was influenced by his biblical culture to change it.

[Craig Paxton]

grapes?

Perhaps, it was some indigenous plant used for wine that they planted in their "vineyards"?

I'm still voting for the "dandelion vineyard" apologetic argument...I know when I go to Napa...I always go on the Dandelion Vineyard tour

[Kevin Christensen]

Thanks for being the arbiter of knowing what I know...it's always good to know you have my back. To be honest, I do not believe that Reformed Egyptian (which I consider a fictional language) had a word for Tapir either, it is FARMS that suggests that a BoM horse is a tapir and that Joseph Smith mistranslated a Nephite word written in reformed Egyptian for tapir into horse because he did not know what a tapir was (why do they do this? Because there were no horses in the world that Mormon apologetics is trying to insert the BoM civilizations into). For me it’s all schadenfreude

What Sorenson actually did is notice what actually happens when people coming into a new area do when they see creatures that they have not seen before, for which they do not have a word, and also what actually happens during any translation. FARMS does not suggest that a Book of Mormon horse is a tapir, but that either the authors or translators MAY HAVE applied that word. What Sorenson actually suggested is a possibility, of which our horse remains a good one, and deer and tapir are others.

While I appreciate the ingenuity of this argument...I find it curious that you only use it when confronted with the anachronisms found in the Book of Mormon. Why does it not apply to the rest of the text, the parts you seem to agree with? Assuming that Joseph used the same process of translation throughout the BoM, why is any of it accurate? Shouldn’t you question the validity of every single word? Maybe the same problems that apply to "horse" apply to the rest of the text.

This is the slippery slope fallacy in action. I see it as symptomatic of all-or-nothing thinking. You might think about where you'd fit on the Perry Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Growth. The useful thing about insisting on perfection is that imperfection, or even the appearance of such, then become decisive, and those with that habit of thought feel justified in ignoring everything else.

On the validity of a single word, take for instance, Alma's comment that he repented "nigh unto death." I wrote an essay in JBMS 2/1 suggesting that his conversion story compares favorably with modern Near death experience accounts. Suppose that the text said, "nigh unto the fallen tree." My arguments, conclusion, and evidence do not stand or fall on a single word, but rather in comparison to wide range of interconnected behaviors that collectively fit together. I could still make my argument without the word in that verse. But that the word "death" is appropriate in light of how well that passage fits with a great deal more information suggests to me that the translation is good, and that Alma is giving a report of distinct and very authentic human experience. It is a convergent set. Not the sort of thing that happens at random.

And the same could be said of things like the Book of Mormon description of Jerusalem in 600 BCE, or the trip through the Arabian desert, and Bountiful candidates due East from Nahom. All of that information converges into consistent picture. The presence of First Temple Theology, the Valley of Lemuel, the story of the broken bow, Nahom, the journey East, and the description of Bountiful, all fit together neatly. It's not about single words disconnected from one another and meaning. But of contexts that consistently illuminate and pull meanings together into a whole fabric, where everything is connected to everything else.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Kevin Christensen]

dup

Edited August 22, 2011 by Kevin Christensen

[KevinG]

I'm still voting for the "dandelion vineyard" apologetic argument...I know when I go to Napa...I always go on the Dandelion Vineyard tour

You missed my post on native Muscadine grapes. Haven't you heard of Muscadine Wine? Must be another D*** Yankee

[Scott Lloyd]

Hi Scott,

Greetings to you, Doug the Hutt

On burdens of defender/critic...

I respectfully disagree with the statement that the critic has a greater burden of proof than the defender. The burden of proof lies squarely on the shoulders of those making affirmative claims. Joseph Smith, and by extention Mormonism(s), is making the affirmative statement that Joseph is God's prophet, that He restored His Church through Joseph, that the LDS Church (not one of its many diminuative branches) is the only true and living church, that all other churches are all abominations and corrupt, that there once lived millions of Jaredites/Nephites/Lamanites with their varying weapons, animals, foods, traditions, governments, wars, writing systems, etc. It is incorrect to begin with the assumption that Mormonism is the defendant and innocent of all charges and that the prosecution has to prove those those things never existed or happened while all the defense has to do is invent plausibilities (how do you prove that none of the events or people in the BOM ever happened or existed?). Insisting that critics (or even 'adversarial critics') of Mormonism have a 'fatuous obliviousness to the FACT' of a greater burden than a defender is nothing more than shifting the burden of proof.

From the foregoing, it is clear to me that you and I labor under incompatible paradigms in framing the intent and objectives of the Church. I shall endeavor to explain.

While I firmly believe that Mormonism can be competently defended through reason and evidence, it is my observation that the Church does not propose to win converts through argumentation and debate. Rather, its approach has always been to present its message, then invite and encourage others to pray for personal revelation regarding the verity of that message. The recurring expression in LDS circles is that "it's the Spirit that converts," not the missionary, not the teacher, not the apologist, not the person presenting the message.

Thus, Wikipedia references notwithstanding, the concept of burden of proof has no application to what the Church of Jesus Christ does, since the Church is not endeavoring to "prove" anything — not in the conventional sense. The approach, again, is to encourage and invite, then let the Spirit influence the heart of the seeker.

Those who attack Mormonism, on the other hand, are seeking to influence listeners through argumentation and debate, the only tools of persuasion and influence at their disposal. Thus, they do bear a burden of proof because of the very nature of what they are doing. As aggressors in a conflict that they themselves choose and sustain, they have the task of utterly discrediting the truth claims of Mormonism such that it is no longer reasonable to undertake an investigation of the faith. This the adversarial critics as a group have been unable to accomplish despite more than 180 years of sustained effort.

Indeed, an investigator whose acceptance of Mormonism does not transcend mere intellect to personal spiritual revelation may well be turned down as he seeks baptism. I know as a district leader on my mission with authority to do screening interviews of baptismal candidates, I would have gently encouraged such a candidate to try a little longer to obtain that witness as a prerequisite to being baptized.

On plausibilities...

Plausibility isn't enough, at least in my mind. How often have we heard of plausible excuses only to find out that they were a deterrent from the truth? We should avoid placing too much hope in "plausibilities" (of course, if that's all that's available then there will be great gnashing of teeth upon hearing my suggestion to avoid them). I'm very suspicous of any defense designed around plausibilities and usually take them with a grain of salt. I'm influenced by the side with the most physical evidence first, then circumstantial evidence and motive, etc. It's not enough to create excuses for specific purposes where the model changes depending on the circumstances (see Cr@ig's posts). What's worse is when almost every falsifiable argument is met with yet another excuse for why we don't find direct evidence validating the reality of the Book of Mormon *stuff* in ancient America.

You might have a point if the Church were seeking to win converts through argumentation and debate, which, of course, it isn't. Plausibility is enough to keep the question open. So long as there is reason to think the truth claims of Mormonism might be true, so long as one can fend off the sophistries of the antagonists, so long as one can demonstrate the fallibility of attack arguments, there is rationale enough for a seeker to go to God in prayer, from which the real conversion flows.

Ultimately, as aggressors in the conflict, though they may inflict casualties from time to time, the antagonists are destined to fail, this because if Mormonism is true — and it is — they can never definitively destroy plausibility.

On God manifesting truth by the Holy Ghost...

Your second point of taking the problem to God and having the Holy Ghost manifest the truth to you -- essentially the process outlined in Moroni 10:3-5 -- is part of the epistemology in question. Employing that process is circular reasoning because the conclusion depends on the legitimacy of the process being questioned which depends on the affirmative answer reached in the conclusion.

If personal revelation received by believers were presented as empirical proof that the Church is true, you might have a valid point here. Of course, it is not presented as such. Personal testimonies are expressed as a means of encouraging one to go to God and seek his/her own personal manifestation. They are also a tool to facilitate personal revelation on the part of the one hearing the testimony being expressed.

Regarding the validity of such a manifestation, I can only echo the words of Philp to Nathanael: "Come and see." Seek the experience personally and determine for yourself whether it is of God. Many have done that, including those with brilliant and scholarly minds, as reflected in Professor Peterson's website "Mormon Scholars Testify."

Edited August 23, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[keith_brian]

... skeptical teenage atheist ...

You and Kirk Cameron ...

[keith_brian]

... skeptical teenage atheist ...

Issues with the board are causing double posts but for all that is good and pure please be careful. One picture of a grinning Kirk Cameron is plenty! - Ares

[T-Shirt]

To be honest, I do not believe that Reformed Egyptian (which I consider a fictional language) had a word for Tapir either, it is FARMS that suggests that a BoM horse is a tapir and that Joseph Smith mistranslated a Nephite word written in reformed Egyptian for tapir into horse because he did not know what a tapir was

Craig,

With all due respect, it appears that you, still, have not grasped the argument. According to the theory, Joseph Smith did not mistranslate anything. The word on the plates was, "horse". The theory suggests that Nephites may have encountered a Tapir, and not knowing what the animal was or what it was called, borrowed and applied the word, "horse". Therefore when they wrote of a tapir, they actually wrote the word, "horse", which was then correctly translated as, "horse".

Best,

T-Shirt

Edited August 23, 2011 by T-Shirt

[keith_brian]

Dehlin was obviously interviewing Coe as an authority on the intersection between Book of Mormon claims and secular archaeology. Coe repeatedly stated that he had spent a lot of time talking with his LDS friends about their beliefs, had done much research when he was writing his piece for Dialogue, and was therefore qualified to speak about the relationship with his own work. Yet it is blindingly apparent that he has not paid the slightest attention to LDS scholarship for decades. His authority in his area of expertise is as irrelevant as the proverbial beet farmer you cite when he is addressing claims he has clearly not bothered to examine fully.

I specifically stated earlier that Coe was not an anti-Mormon. But your analogy rather blithely ignores the complexities of the translation process and how the book relates to Precolumbian studies, thereby functioning as a useless non sequitur. I'm bemused at the thought that open prejudice and a refusal to keep up with scholarly developments could be considered representative of "common sense."

But, Jeremy, isn't the impetus on the Mormon Scholars in this case and not the other way around?

The text of the BofM says horses. The most straight forward interpretation of this is to suppose that it means what it says. Coe simply does this and concludes, based off archeology, that this is an anachronism in the text. Apologists claim that, in this case, the word horse meant "tapir". Isn't the burden of proof on the apologists then to refute the prima facie reading of the BofM text and show some evidence of WHY they believe JS might have made this substitution. The arguments against this line of reasoning are fairly convincing (at least to me) and include:

1. The fact that entire sections of the Bible are present in the Book of Mormon word for word, seeming to contradict any assertions that JS was making a "loose" translation of the text where images and feelings would come to his mind and he had to associate words with them.

2. The presence of other "transliterations" in the BoM, including the word "Liahona"

3. The context of horses doing many things that JS would have associated with horses in his day, including pulling chariots.

I think that Cinepro nailed it right on the head -- there really is no common sense reason to believe the BoM without an a priori belief system supporting it, just as there is no reason to believe in Dianetics without the same a priori belief system.

[cinepro]

Craig,

With all due respect, it appears that you, still, have not grasped the argument. According to the theory, Joseph Smith did not mistranslate anything. The word on the plates was, "horse". The theory suggests that Nephites may have encountered a Tapir, and not knowing what the animal was or what it was called, borrowed and applied the word, "horse". Therefore when they wrote of a tapir, they actually wrote the word, "horse", which was then correctly translated as, "horse".

Best,

T-Shirt

The problem isn't that he hasn't grasped it. The problem is the weakness of the argument itself.

If the only mention of horses was in Nephi, then you might have a point. But here are the instances of the word "horse" in the Book of Mormon (not including scriptural quotations):

- 1 Nephi 18:25 - Nephi, shortly after Lehite landfall.

- Enos 1:21 - 170 years after Lehite landfall

- Alma 18:19 - 500 years after Lehite landfall

- 3 Nephi 3:22 - 600+ years after Lehite landfall

- 3 Nephi 6:1 - 600+ years after Lehite landfall

- Ether 9:19 - ? years before Lehite landfall (which records are divinely translated into Nephitish, and then English)

Whatever word was used by Nephi upon first seeing the animals he called "horses", that word would then change meaning and mean that new animal and no longer refer to an old-world "horse". So, for example, if Nephi's word for a horse was "shalaman", then by the time Enos and Alma roll around, a "shalaman" isn't a "horse", it's a "deer" or "tapir" or whatever it is.

If Moroni or Nephi or any other divine being was the translator, he would either think that a "shalaman" is a deer or tapir, or he would know there are two different animals, but it would be impossible for him to think that in Alma 18 the animal being referred to is rendered in English as "horse".

You can theorize that the translator knew that the word in Alma 18 was referring to something else, but since the word on the plates was a 500 year old usage of Nephi's misapplication they felt compelled to adhere to a strictly literal translation, but that's a bush-league mistake that not even fallible mortal translators would intentionally make. So it's a little insulting to accuse the divine translator of doing it.

Edited August 23, 2011 by cinepro

[T-Shirt]

The problem isn't that he hasn't grasped it. The problem is the weakness of the argument itself.

I don't know of anyone who has presented this theory as the final answer to the horse issue. It has been presented as one of several possibilities. I can see the plausibility of the theory, even though I don't consider it to be likely. Nevertheless, the problem is not that it is weak, the problem is that critics continue to misunderstand and misrepresent the whole argument. Craig is just another, in a long line of critics, who, for some reason, even after it has been explained, can't get it right.

T-Shirt

Edited August 23, 2011 by T-Shirt

[Craig Paxton]

Craig,

With all due respect, it appears that you, still, have not grasped the argument. According to the theory, Joseph Smith did not mistranslate anything. The word on the plates was, "horse". The theory suggests that Nephites may have encountered a Tapir, and not knowing what the animal was or what it was called, borrowed and applied the word, "horse". Therefore when they wrote of a tapir, they actually wrote the word, "horse", which was then correctly translated as, "horse".

Best,

T-Shirt

Interesting apologetic argument...I guess your right, I'm just too dumb to grasp how a people who have never seen a "horse", don't know what a "horse" is but fortuanttly for Joseph write the word "horse" on the plates so that Joseph won't mistranslate. Yup I'm just too dumb to understand this brilliant apologetic mind bending technique.

[T-Shirt]

Interesting apologetic argument...I guess your right, I'm just too dumb to grasp how a people who have never seen a "horse", don't know what a "horse" is but fortuanttly for Joseph write the word "horse" on the plates so that Joseph won't mistranslate. Yup I'm just too dumb to understand this brilliant apologetic mind bending technique.

I never said you were dumb. However, you continue to create a caricature of the argument. The theory has never claimed that Nephites didn't know that a tapir was not a horse. Although, I suspect, you already knew that. Unless, of course, you still don't get it.

Best,

T-Shirt

Edited August 24, 2011 by T-Shirt

[Dan Vogel]

Something relevant for Craig's recurrent difficulty with the implications of cultural context from my essay in FR 16/1.

In the same way, in explaining the parable of the sower in Mark, Jesus says, "Know ye not his parable? How then will ye know all parables?" Jesus points out that unless you comprehend the notion that the same words can yield a vastly different harvest, depending on the context you place them and the nurture that you give them, you really can't understand what is he is getting at in making any kind of likening.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Kevin,

Ad hoc hypotheses are defenses against adverse evidence without evidence. The main attribute about them is that they can neither be proved nor disproved. The game the apologists want to play with name substitutions and translation in which they endlessly speculate in ad hoc fashion about an underlying text removes the BOM from any legitimate test. It is an attempt to immunize your position from criticism. Limited geography, name substitutions, and so forth are ad hoc escapes from adverse evidence. To point this out is not ad hoc.

[LeSellers]

I do not believe that Reformed Egyptian (which I consider a fictional language) ...

Well, you see, that's a problem because nowhere in the Book of Mormon does the phrase "reformed Egyptian" refer to a "language". It's just a set of characters, an "alphabet", if you will.

Your premise is false. Your conclusion is shaky, at best.

The characters which the Nephite historian/prophets called "reformed Egyptian" were used to convey the ideas they wrote in their native language (a form of Hebrew, as best we can deduce). They had been in their Promised Land for 1,000 years. To assume that in that time they had not adapted existing words (likely, as this is the pattern around the world and throughout history) or coined new ones for the animals and plants they encountered is preposterous. Those words they adapted for new uses had meanings in the original tongue, but those meanings were probably wholly forgotten (except among linguistic scholars—which we do not encounter in the Book of Mormon).

Nephi did not bring horses with him from Asia. If there were not horses, a point I do not concede, he still had the word, he and his children and grandchildren, since he read them the scriptures form the Brass plates, if nothing else. I assume he told them stories of riding (his family was wealthy you recall) when he was back in the land of Jerusalem. To tell his little ones what he was talking about, he'd have to draw them pictures, using available referents, referents like tapirs or llamas: "Well, Matthew, my 'horse' is like that animal over there [pointing], only much larger. He was ... ." "Oh, Grandpa, you used to ride a [thing like that]. Are there horses here?" "No Matthew, I haven't seen any. But, if you like, you can call [those things over there} 'horses' if you like. We'll know what you mean."

Lehi

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin,

Ad hoc hypotheses are defenses against adverse evidence without evidence. The main attribute about them is that they can neither be proved nor disproved. The game the apologists want to play with name substitutions and translation in which they endlessly speculate in ad hoc fashion about an underlying text removes the BOM from any legitimate test. It is an attempt to immunize your position from criticism. Limited geography, name substitutions, and so forth are ad hoc escapes from adverse evidence. To point this out is not ad hoc.

More precisely, at least according to wikipedia, "In science and philosophy, an ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. Ad hoc hypothesizing is compensating for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form."

In the case hypothesis of the Book of Mormon being a translation from one language and culture to another, the concern about establishing the precise meaning words is a matter of general principle that applies to all translations across all cultures, not an added hypothesis invented only for the Book of Mormon case. Take, for instance, the Bible translation that refers to hiding lit candles under bushel baskets. The original language and context did not describe wax candles, but olive oil lamps. The anachronism in translation and interpretation does not falsify the original. Nor does the presence of a translator anachronism change the effective meaning of the passage in modern translation. It works as a good translation of intended meaning.

There is no such thing as a perfect translation of precise meaning across any two languages and cultures. That is a valid general principle, not an ad hoc hypothesis invented solely for discussing the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon nowhere claims perfection but accounts for human factors and cultural distance (2 Nephi 25:1-5). Joseph Smith himself commented (D&C 128) on a Bible translation as being "sufficiently plain for my purposes as it is. And by making subsequent edits to both his translations and revelations, he demonstrates that he did not consider them error-free, or his initial understanding necessarily perfect. And for that matter, we have no evidence from any other examples of sacred scripture being transmitted from the past by conventional methods, either scribal copying, or by means of burial and recovery, to be error free. So we have no evidence that God works in any other way than is demonstrated in the Book of Mormon original and printers and published texts.

Another valid general principle is that words often have different meanings which can only be clarified and constrained by context, and sometimes even then, ambiguity remains. That is why dictionaries regularly list multiple meanings for words. And shifts in meaning account for the need to update dictionaries according common practice and use. For instance, the word "curious" in 1828 meant something different than common use today, and that turns out to cast light on the Book of Mormon use. I just read in a Barker essay that the Hebrew for "chariot", merkabah, can also mean "throne" as well as riding thing. Which means I can validly visualize Lamoni's father moving in royal ceremonial transport in a number of possible configurations.

And for all the fuss about "Tapir" versus "horse", the truth of falsity of the Book of Mormon does not hinge on it. It is merely a suggestion of one possibility among several. Horse, tapir, deer, llama. Take it or leave it, but don't inflate it into a lynch-pin that it is not and never was. Nor does all, or even much, Book of Mormon apologetic depend on such suggestions. The twenty-two days marching distance between Nephi and Zarahemla, across a narrow strip of wilderness that extends from the ea east to the sea west, and then down the Sidon to a Zarahemla on the West bank of a fordable river, for instance, makes good Mesoamerican sense from the perspective of Google earth, as Larry Poulson has shown. In the PBS interview, Coe claims that Joseph Smith was "flabbergasted" upon reading the Stephens book on Mesoamerican cities because Joseph had previously been imagining South America as the Land Southward. Coe does not notice the anomaly of Joseph Smith intentionally describing one setting, and accidentally, but accurately describing a hemispherically unique setting elsewhere.

Another general principle in archeology is that current views periodically get over-turned by new discoveries. So John Clark's 2005 survey of trends overtime relative to Book of Mormon criticisms can count for something in dealing with claims to have falsified the Book of Mormon.

There are all sorts of legitimate ways to test the Book of Mormon. Even so, in practice, paradigms, as I keep repeating, are neither verified, nor falsified, but assessed by a variety of criteria. And there are no rules for doing do, which means, like it or not, neither side in a debate can coerce opponents into submission. Everyone gets to decide for themselves, which solutions are most convincing, which problems are more significant to have solved, and which approach offers the most future promise in dealing with unsolved issues. And anyone can say "So what?" to anyone else.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited August 25, 2011 by Kevin Christensen

[Jaybear]

And for all the fuss about "Tapir" versus "horse", the truth of falsity of the Book of Mormon does not hinge on it. It is merely a suggestion of one possibility among several. Horse, tapir, deer, llama. Take it or leave it, but don't inflate it into a lynch-pin that it is not and never was.

Its not that complicated. The Book of Mormon is either an authentic translation of an ancient record, or 19th century work of fiction.

Based on what we think we know about the world, the book, as written, contains numerous anachronisms, including in this instance its repeated reference to "horses."

Your job, as an apologist is to present a credible explanation as to how an anachronism such as "horse" could find its way into an authentic translation. Critics understand the argument you are making here, and its premise. We just don't find the explanation the least bit credible under the circumstances.

Under the circumstance here, to accept the explanation as credible, we would have to believe that Nephites having emigrated from the old world, and knew what horses were, and how to use them, would have called tapirs horses, AND would have treated tapirs as if they were horses.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Jaybear

[T-Shirt]

Critics understand the argument you are making here, and its premise.

Based on what we have read in this thread alone, I think you are wrong about this.

We just don't find the explanation the least bit credible under the circumstances.

It is not so much about the credibility of the matter as it is about the critics, either intentionally or ignorantly, misrepresenting the whole argument.

Under the circumstance here, to accept the explanation as credible, we would have to believe that Nephites having emigrated from the old world, and knew what horses were, and how to use them, would have called tapirs horses, AND would have treated tapirs as if they were horses.

Unless I misunderstand what you are saying, It appears that you don't understand it either.

Best,

T-Shirt

Edited August 24, 2011 by T-Shirt

[Kevin Christensen]

Its not that complicated. The Book of Mormon is either an authentic translation of an ancient record, or 19th century work of fiction.

Based on what we think we know about the world, the book, as written, contains numerous anachronisms, including in this instance its repeated reference to "horses."

Your job, as an apologist is to present a credible explanation as to how an anachronism such as "horse" could find its way into an authentic translation. Critics understand the argument you are making here, and its premise. We just don't find the explanation the least bit credible under the circumstances.

Under the circumstance here, to accept the explanation as credible, we would have to believe that Nephites having emigrated from the old world, and knew what horses were, and how to use them, would have called tapirs horses, AND would have treated tapirs as if they were horses.

My job is as a technical writer. But as a participant on this board, in this discussion, if the critics had demonstrated an understanding of the argument, including its presentation, actual claims and significance (not the exaggerated caricature), and had offered the kinds of rational justification I mention, I wouldn't have bothered to post on the topic. The argument as described by the critics may not be credible in the form in which they have presented it, but that is not the form in which I see it. And the way I see it is, by an amazing coincidence, the way I see it.

When Bruce Campbell as Ash says, "Gimme some sugar baby," I don't have to imagine him wanting an adorable infant to bring refined white sugar for his morning coffee. Having seen Army of Darkness, I know the context. Context matters for words. Even simple words. Always. And larger context matters for the relative significance of an argument. I personally don't see the "tapir" suggestion as necessary, primary, major, or even justifiably prominent in Book of Mormon controversies. Just as one of a number of reasonable possibilities for one small issue given the cultural context, the realities of translation, the uncertain relationship between signifiers and the signified, and the lack of clarifying descriptive information in the very limited Book of Mormon mentions of "horse."

The trouble some people have with that may be related to their progress, or lack thereof, on the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth. Step 6 Commitment Foreseen, includes this:

He starts to see how he must be embracing and transcending of: certainty/doubt, focus/breadth, idealism/realism, tolerance/contempt, stability/flexibility. He senses need for affirmation and incorporation of existential or logical polarities. He senses need to hold polarities in tension in the interest of Truth.

He begins to maintain meaning, coherence, and value while conscious of their partial, limited, and contradictable nature. He begins to understand symbol as symbols and acknowledges the time-place relativity of them. He begins to affirm and hold absolutes in symbols while still acknowledging them to be relativistic. He begins to embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own. Now the person has a field-independent learning style, has learned to scan for information, accepts that hierarchical and analytic notes are evidence of sharpening of cognition. He is willing to take risks, is flexible, perceptive, broad, strategy-minded, and analytical.

Rather than to tapir, I prefer to give my attention to larger issues for which more information in the text, and more comparative information outside the text, makes for a more manageable and definitive form of testing. First Temple theology, for instance. Benjamin's discourse as ritual. Volcanoes at the right time and rivers that uniquely fit the text. Convergent details for the Arabian journey. Stuff that Coe would have to Google to catch up on because he couldn't have learned them from Ferguson and Brodie who decided long before such things were imagined, researched, and discovered. As a general rule, people adopt paradigms on the basis of what it helps explain. The open puzzles are where research, and sometimes discovery, happens. Re-valuing an open puzzle as a counter-instance, which you are free to do, is not the same thing as comprehensively explaining everything that the historicist paradigm explains.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited August 24, 2011 by Kevin Christensen

[cinepro]

Rather than to tapir, I prefer to give my attention to larger issues for which more information in the text, and more comparative information outside the text, makes for a more manageable and definitive form of testing.

First Temple theology, for instance.

Benjamin's discourse as ritual.

Volcanoes at the right time and rivers that uniquely fit the text.

Convergent details for the Arabian journey. Stuff that Coe would have to Google to catch up on because he couldn't have learned them from Ferguson and Brodie who decided long before such things were imagined, researched, and discovered.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

With all due respect, I suspect Coe would have to Google the arguments based on "First Temple theology", "Benjamin's discourse as ritual", and "convergent details for the Arabian journey" because they have nothing to do with the ancient mesoamericans.

As I said before, Coe's biggest mistake is approaching the Book of Mormon and asking whether what is described in the text (as it is described in the text) comports with what he knows of the ancient Mayans and Olmecs. He says it doesn't. You have the Book of Mormon, and you have Coe and his knowledge.

Apologists might have a bazillion awesome arguments that tie the Book of Mormon to ancient Egypt, Arabia, Sumeria, China, and the american heartland, but those aren't what Coe knows about, so why should he address them? If he did, the obvious response would be to ask why an expert on mesoamerica is addressing evidences that are based in the old world or North America.

Apologists also might have a bazillion awesome arguments about why the Book of Mormon says what it says and why we should believe it means something else (cultural bias, inflated numbers, misreported geography, mistranslation etc.), or in someway relates to the ancient mesoamericans if we look at the text just so. But again, how is he supposed to address this?

Interviewer: Dr. Coe, if the Book of Mormon meant "tapir" when it says "horse", then that would be an accurate "hit" for ancient mesoamerica, wouldn't it?

Coe: Yes, it would. But it doesn't say that.

Interviewer: But if it did?

Coe: But it doesn't.

Interviewer: I know, but work with me here. What if it did?

...ad infinitum

[Dan Vogel]

Kevin,

More precisely, at least according to wikipedia, "In science and philosophy, an ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. Ad hoc hypothesizing is compensating for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form."

Yes, and in history the fewer of these ad hoc escapes a theory has, the more preferred it is (see Wikipedia under “historical method”). Your theory has too many.

In the case hypothesis of the Book of Mormon being a translation from one language and culture to another, the concern about establishing the precise meaning words is a matter of general principle that applies to all translations across all cultures, not an added hypothesis invented only for the Book of Mormon case. Take, for instance, the Bible translation that refers to hiding lit candles under bushel baskets. The original language and context did not describe wax candles, but olive oil lamps. The anachronism in translation and interpretation does not falsify the original. Nor does the presence of a translator anachronism change the effective meaning of the passage in modern translation. It works as a good translation of intended meaning.

I think the workings of translation are well-known, but whether or not it applies to the BOM is what is at issue here. You haven’t established that the BOM is history let alone a translation. Hence you can’t use it as an assumption to escape anachronisms. In your hands an appeal to translation is merely an apologetic devise, which does nothing to explain the text or to broaden its scope or explanatory power. If you were allowed to do this, there would be no way to test the BOM or challenge the historicity of any purported translation.

There is no such thing as a perfect translation of precise meaning across any two languages and cultures. That is a valid general principle, not an ad hoc hypothesis invented solely for discussing the Book of Mormon.

No one disputes translators make errors. The issue is the misapplication of a principle to escape adverse evidence, both in frequency and in the ad hoc and convenient fashion it is applied. Ad hoc doesn’t have to be an invention of a new idea or concept; it can also be an interpretation that is not supported by evidence. In other words, its sole purpose is to save a central theory from adverse evidence.

Another valid general principle is that words often have different meanings which can only be clarified and constrained by context, and sometimes even then, ambiguity remains. That is why dictionaries regularly list multiple meanings for words. And shifts in meaning account for the need to update dictionaries according common practice and use. For instance, the word "curious" in 1828 meant something different than common use today, and that turns out to cast light on the Book of Mormon use. I just read in a Barker essay that the Hebrew for "chariot", merkabah, can also mean "throne" as well as riding thing. Which means I can validly visualize Lamoni's father moving in royal ceremonial transport in a number of possible configurations.

But we can’t overlook your apologetic motivations in doing so. You are not doing it to illuminate a passage, but to escape adverse implications the plain meaning the text has for your central theory. You are being forced to introduce new meanings in a way that begs the question. I might add, in a way that only a believer can appreciate.

And for all the fuss about "Tapir" versus "horse", the truth of falsity of the Book of Mormon does not hinge on it. It is merely a suggestion of one possibility among several. Horse, tapir, deer, llama. Take it or leave it, but don't inflate it into a lynch-pin that it is not and never was. Nor does all, or even much, Book of Mormon apologetic depend on such suggestions.

No. It has more to do with this and other anachronisms of flora and fauna, metallurgy, as well as its use of KJV of the Bible. In absence of direct evidence, these anachronisms should be taken seriously as a caution against question-begging interpretations of the BOM and Mesoamerica.

Another general principle in archeology is that current views periodically get over-turned by new discoveries. So John Clark's 2005 survey of trends overtime relative to Book of Mormon criticisms can count for something in dealing with claims to have falsified the Book of Mormon.

This is nothing but the fallacy of possible proof bolstered by a rather meaningless belief that there is a trend happening in the BOM’s favor. There is also another trend. As viewed from my position, the more that has been learned about ancient America the less so-called evidences for the BOM have been brought forward by apologists. Apologists rely less today on artifacts and more on textual manipulation. In 1830, virtually every thing was an evidence for the BOM; today nothing is. I think this trend is more important.

There are all sorts of legitimate ways to test the Book of Mormon. Even so, in practice, paradigms, as I keep repeating, are neither verified, nor falsified, by assessed by a variety of criteria. And there are no rules for doing do, which means, like it or not, neither side in a debate can coerce opponents into submission. Everyone gets to decide for themselves, which solutions are most convincing, which problems are more significant to have solved, and which approach offers the most future promise in dealing with unsolved issues. And anyone can say "So what?" to anyone else.

This has less to do with paradigms and more to do with your willingness to believe something until it’s proved false. In which case, you are trapped in a belief that can be neither proved nor disproved. You can say “So what” to adverse evidence, but it’s only on the basis of faith, not on some kind of alternate scientific paradigm.