Not so easy?

[cinepro]

the types of information I am looking at in the text falls much more strongly into that which may be tested than does a word in English that may or may not represent the original word

Unfortunately, there is one critical difference between the Book of Mormon and all other translated texts.

The Book of Mormon had an omniscent, infallible translator: God. He may have used a human, fallible dictator as a voice to his translation, but the actual translation from Reformed Egyptian to English had to be done by God, since Joseph Smith didn't know Reformed Egyptian in the first place (undeducated farm boy and all that).

Not only did the translator have a perfect knowledge of the languages involved, he had a perfect knowledge of the cultures and original intent of the authors.

[Calm]

cinepro, you are making an assumption here. I can make another. Perhaps the translator wasn't God, but was instead Mormon or Moroni and the Holy Ghost was the conduit between them.

Another assumption: the infallible translator forced his perfect translation onto Joseph Smith, giving him complete and perfect knowledge of all details.

Brant,

Pulling out one piece of information is the intellectual equivalent of a single McDonald's french fry. It might seem to taste good - but it isn't enough and it isn't a real meal.

I'm sorry, but this is just a lousy analogy. No meal which includes McDonald's french fries could possibly be defined as a "real meal."

[cinepro]

Not to mention the fact that it is the classic ad hominem: if Mormons believe it, it can't be true

I can't speak for Shades, but I agree with his statement.

Is there any "data" for which the Book of Mormon is needed as an explanation? Are there areas of research where mesoamerican researchers have information, but could explain it if only they looked to the Book of Mormon.

For example, pretend a giant mural from 100 AD was discovered in some Mayan temple that showed a man, woman, tree, and snake. Researchers think this looks like Adam and Eve, but can't explain how the story would have gotten there. But they could, if they looked to the Book of Mormon.

Or suppose they found evidence of steel swords from ~570BC (I had put "AD" before). This doesn't fit with their previous theories, and they can't figure out where steel suddenly comes from at this time.

But the Book of Mormon answers the question.

2 Nephi 5

[14] And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords, lest by any means the people who were now called Lamanites should come upon us and destroy us; for I knew their hatred towards me and my children and those who were called my people.

[15] And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

But we don't see that. Instead of non-member researchers being forced to look at the Book of Mormon to explain data that can in no other way be accounted for, we find apologists looking to the research, to try and find ways in which the Book of Mormon can be made to fit it. Given enough latitude (previous prophetic statements don't count, words and phrases can be reinterpreted), this approach can go a long way.

It's one thing to take existing, explainable data and try and fit it to the Book of Mormon by reinterpreting terms and phrases to fit the evidence. It's wholly another thing to have existing data that is only (or best) explainable by the Book. Perhaps one day God will quit hiding the evidence and allow those of us with little faith to know the truth.

[Calm]

~570AD.

assuming you meant BC.

[Dr. Shades]

cinepro, you are making an assumption here. I can make another. Perhaps the translator wasn't God, but was instead Mormon or Moroni and the Holy Ghost was the conduit between them.

If that assumption had any validity, then what was the purpose of the Seer Stone?

[cinepro]

assuming you meant BC.

Indeed I did.

cinepro, you are making an assumption here. I can make another. Perhaps the translator wasn't God, but was instead Mormon or Moroni and the Holy Ghost was the conduit between them.

If you are comfortable with that view of the translation process, that is fine with me. For some reason I always assumed God was involved with the process, but I'm sure any support I could find for the belief would just be Church leaders expressing their fallible opinions.

[Daniel Peterson]

For some reason I always assumed God was involved with the process, but I'm sure any support I could find for the belief would just be Church leaders expressing their fallible opinions.

Two straw men in one sentence? You do yourself proud.

[Bill Hamblin]

Is there any "data" for which the Book of Mormon is needed as an explanation? Are there areas of research where mesoamerican researchers have information, but could explain it if only they looked to the Book of Mormon.

Cinepro obviously doesn't understand how scholarship works. Scholarly theories generally are designed to deal with all known evidence. Whatever is known is incorporated into the theory. The problem is, of course, that what is known is only a small subset of what actually happened. Thus older models are constantly being reformulated to accomadate new data.

There was a perfectly coherent and consistant history of Judaism before the discovery of the DSS, which forced that entire history to be rewritten. There was likewise a perfectly coherent and consistant history of early Christianity before the discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts, which likewise forced that entire history to be rewritten. New evidence always requires the reformulation of old theories. That is why LDS scholars like Brant don't have to reject any data on Mesoamerica; the BOM supplements know data, just as the DSS supplement other sources on Judaism.

But even if a "steel sword" or a Hebrew inscription were discovered in Mesoamerica it would not require a belief in the BOM, would it. There are any number of ways that could be explained. Hence the obsession with archaeological confirmation of the BOM is a red herring. Even the discovery of a BOM-related name like Kish in Maya inscriptions (U-kix-chan as a primordial Olmec-age ancestor of the Maya kings of Palenque from the Temple of the Cross inscription at Palenque, Schele and Freidel, Forest of Kings, 246-7) can be dismissed as mere coincidence. So, if the presence of a Jaredite-style name associated with an ancient Olmec king is no acceptable pro-BOM evidence, what would be?

[Calm]

For some reason I always assumed God was involved with the process

Which is what I said.

[Ray Agostini]

For some reason I always assumed God was involved with the process, but I'm sure any support I could find for the belief would just be Church leaders expressing their fallible opinions.

God was certainly involved in the process, but that's different than saying, as you did, that,

The Book of Mormon had an omniscent, infallible translator: God. He may have used a human, fallible dictator as a voice to his translation, but the actual translation from Reformed Egyptian to English had to be done by God, since Joseph Smith didn't know Reformed Egyptian in the first place (undeducated farm boy and all that).

Even Nephi said "if there be faults.....". Would he have said that if it was not possible for "the faults of men" to enter both the writing and the translation?

In the D&C we are also told that all revelation is subject to the understanding of men.

23 That the fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed by the weak and the simple unto the ends of the world, and before kings and rulers.

  24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. (D&C 1)

I think your understanding of both the translation, and your expectations of what can be proved by archaeology are unrealistic. I know it would be nice to have more solid evidence than what sometimes appears, but frankly what Brant presents, to me, is very impressive. That, coupled with what I see is internal evidence way beyond Joseph's capabality is enough for me to hinge the rest on faith. I certainly don't think Joseph was completely ignorant. Philip Barlow presented enough evidence to suggest that he may even have had a photographic memory of scripture, and we know he had a good understanding of Nephite civilisation. Given those, you can mold your conclusion either way. I think whether you're Dan Vogel, Brent Metcalfe, or Bill Hamblin and Dan Peterson, you have to exercise faith, in the end, because you can call it either way. But when I compare Joseph's personal writing to the BoM I see no comparison to draw a conclusion that he could produce the BoM in toto, not even from D&C 121, which Dan V suggested, as did Roberts in Studies, is evidence of his revelatory ability. D&C 121 is one section later pieced together then published as a synchronised revelation, and certainly evidence of both Joseph's ability and God's revelatory power, but the BoM is continuous complex revelation for over 500 pages in about three months, with one witness, Emma Smith, saying it was not within his literary ability to produce that, that despite his grasp of scripture he was "barely able to write a coherent letter".

[cinepro]

Even the discovery of a BOM-related name like Kish in Maya inscriptions (U-kix-chan as a primordial Olmec-age ancestor of the Maya kings of Palenque from the Temple of the Cross inscription at Palenque, Schele and Freidel, Forest of Kings, 246-7)

I don't speak Mayan or Olmec or any other ancient languages, so could you help me understand how you get from "U-kix-chan" to "Kish"?

Isn't it also weird how a BOM-related name like "Kish" is similar to an Old Testament-related name like "Kish"?

If you need me to, I can show you how I made the connection between the Biblical name "Kish" and the BOM name "Kish". It doesn't require the use of any other languages other than English.

I can also show you how the dictator of the Book of Mormon was familiar with the needed language (English), and also had a copy of the Old Testament to refer to. Of course, I had Google to help me, and Joseph Smith didn't, so it would have been impossible for him to make that connection on his own.

Do apologists probably view the similarity between the name "Kish" and the name "Kish" as a coincedence?

[cinepro]

but the BoM is continuous complex revelation for over 500 pages in about three months,

Question for apologists and critical researchers alike:

When did the dictation of the existing portion of the Book of Mormon begin? (Do we know the day or month?)

When did it end? (Day or month?)

If you subtract the first answer from the second, do we really get "3 months"?

[Brant Gardner]

cinepro:

I don't speak Mayan or Olmec or any other ancient languages, so could you help me understand how you get from "U-kix-chan" to "Kish"?

Native America languages were traditionally transliterated with the Spanish phonetic system. At the time of the conquest the Spanish X represented an /sh/ sound. The original pronunciation of Mexico was /meshico/. The prefix "U" is a possessive and the suffix -chan is the word for "snake." Maya elite names tend to be compound words and u-kix-chan is such a compound.

Isn't it also weird how a BOM-related name like "Kish" is similar to an Old Testament-related name like "Kish"?

Isn't it weird that this is exactly what Bill Hamblin predicted would happen if there were direct evidence for the Book of Mormon? I'm sure you thought you were making a different point rather than proving the one he made.

[YH8]

On the other hand, the anti-Mormons have not only rarely engaged the numerous remarkable successes of BOM studies in the past three decades, they have, for the most part, both failed to even try, and worse, to even acknowledge that such studies exist. The stunning failure of the critics to even acknowledge the existence of positive data supporting the BOM is quite remarkable.

Sounds like an incredibly bad case of Denial.

[Dem Marminz just can't be right cuz it doesn't fit with our highly evolved, modern, culturally dependent interpretation of the CILCy smooth Bible (Complete, Infallible, Literal, Clear). Things LDS are so ridiculous we don't even need to pay attention to what LDS say or do. So we merrily go along doing whatever it takes to get people not to consider or believe in things LDS. Remember, the end justifies the means.]

[Ray Agostini]

If you subtract the first answer from the second, do we really get "3 months"?

I believe it began in June 1829. It is true there was some dictation before that, but nothing substantial nor continuous, which included the Lehi MS. To explain the rapid translation process of approximately 60 days you either have to resort to Joseph's photographic memory, if it could extend to ALL of the complex BoM, and the incredible consistency from start to finish, or you have to show that he could have copied from notes, which all of the witnesses rejected.

My opinion? The most learned academic today, in history, geography, linguistics, biblical studies, etc, could not in 30 years produce a Book of Mormon. Just ask David Wright what he thinks.

[YH8]

If you subtract the first answer from the second, do we really get "3 months"?

I believe it began in June 1829. It is true there was some dictation before that, but nothing substantial nor continuous, which included the Lehi MS. To explain the rapid translation process of approximately 60 days you either have to resort to Joseph's photographic memory, if it could extend to ALL of the complex BoM, and the incredible consistency from start to finish, or you have to show that he could have copied from notes, which all of the witnesses rejected.

My opinion? The most learned academic today, in history, geography, linguistics, biblical studies, etc, could not in 30 years produce a Book of Mormon. Just ask David Wright what he thinks.

Oh come on, now. Let's see, didn't the magical spectical wearin', rock-in-the-hat totin', womanizing, lush Joey Schmidt (this was his real name, you know. Originator of the Nazi's) talk about Native American stories from the time he was a kid plus he claimed to know about the gold tablets at least 4 years prior to getting them plus he had them for a couple years to "translate," so I'm guessing he had at least 10-15 years to come up with that whole story. Plus there have been 4,000+ changes since originally published; just to get it more believable.

What history books are all you hacks reading from, anyway? Oh yeah, y'all are just LDS, some work at BYU, most probably went to BYU, and you usually contradict MUEagle. How do you expect me to take what you say seriously? I mean, really, now.

[cinepro]

This site has what appears to be a good timeline for the dictation:

http://www.wasatchnet.net/users/ewatson/BoM.htm

~Sunday, October 26, 1828, Harmony

(Translation to Mosiah 1:1, Harmony) BoM translation begins (~3 pages/week).

I have assumed a date late in October in order to give Joseph Smith as much time as possible to participate in the fall harvest in order to store provisions for the coming winter. Joseph was commanded to not proceed faster than means were provided to enable him to translate, and he records that he did not return to translating for a while.

~Sunday, March 15, 1829, Harmony Translation of the Book of Mosiah is complete.

This date was determined by estimating a two week cessation of translation before the arrival of Oliver Cowdery. The translation rate of three pages per week was derived from the start date of October 26, 1828 and completion date of March 15, 1829.

And then...

April 06, 1829 to June 16, 1829 - Translation of the Book of Mormon

At this point we move to a daily analysis of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Again, it is the rate of translation, approximately 6.5 pages per day. which is tabulated.

So the "actual" start of the translation is October 1828, with the end being around June 1829. Even accounting for illnesses, travel, and other concerns, doesn't a claim of "500 pages in about three months" seem a little optimistic?

I'd also like to ask, if Joseph were dictating it without God's help, how long would we expect it to take? Why?

[Confidential Informant]

Even the discovery of a BOM-related name like Kish in Maya inscriptions (U-kix-chan as a primordial Olmec-age ancestor of the Maya kings of Palenque from the Temple of the Cross inscription at Palenque, Schele and Freidel, Forest of Kings, 246-7)

I don't speak Mayan or Olmec or any other ancient languages, so could you help me understand how you get from "U-kix-chan" to "Kish"?

Isn't it also weird how a BOM-related name like "Kish" is similar to an Old Testament-related name like "Kish"?

If you need me to, I can show you how I made the connection between the Biblical name "Kish" and the BOM name "Kish". It doesn't require the use of any other languages other than English.

I can also show you how the dictator of the Book of Mormon was familiar with the needed language (English), and also had a copy of the Old Testament to refer to. Of course, I had Google to help me, and Joseph Smith didn't, so it would have been impossible for him to make that connection on his own.

Do apologists probably view the similarity between the name "Kish" and the name "Kish" as a coincedence?

Cinepro,

Haven't you just proven Dr. Hamblin's point? The significance of the find, if you accept it as such, is that Joseph took the name Kish and placed in a Mesoamerican context among a group of people who lived there approximaltey what, 3000 years ago? (I don't remember exact dates).

Low and behold, an inscription turns up on mesoamerica with a name that is very much like "Kish" and it turns up at exactly the time and place that Smith "predicted" it would. Now, you are correct, if Kish was a name common only to the Book of Mormon, the discovery might be even more exciting, but as you point out. It has some similarities to the Old Testment.

However, you still have to account for how Joseph guess correctly that Kish from the OT would be be found in the correct time and place in Mesoamerica.

But you've proved Dr. Hamblin correct. If we found a horse, or a steel sword in mesoamerica, would that prove the B of M correct? Hardly. Critics will simply begin to engage in the same type of post-hoc reasoning that you have....seeking some other explanation to sweep away the new fact.

C.I.

Edited to add that Brant already made this point.

ci.

[Daniel Peterson]

The best treatment of Book of Mormon translation time, from which the figure of between two and three months is generally taken these days, is John W. Welch and Tim Rathbone, "The Translation of the Book of Mormon: Basic Historical Information" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1986).

[cinepro]

But you've proved Dr. Hamblin correct. If we found a horse, or a steel sword in mesoamerica, would that prove the B of M correct? Hardly. Critics will simply begin to engage in the same type of post-hoc reasoning that you have....seeking some other explanation to sweep away the new fact.

You're absolutely right. As I've said before, it wouldn't be one thing that would "prove" the Book of Mormon correct. It would be dozens and dozens of things. A patchwork of evidences that collects overtime.

For example, Nova had an episode that discusses the changing theories about ancient American settlers. As new evidence and fossils are found, scientists ask more and more questions, and testing more and more different theories. And yes, existing scientists can be resistant to changing their minds, but in the end, the evidence will demand it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/stoneage/

One team even proposes that the first Americans came from Europe, not Asia, based on the similarity of Clovis points to the weapons of the Solutreans, who lived about 17,000 years ago in what is now southern France and northern Spain. If the Solutreans ever crossed the Atlantic, they may have traveled like today's Eskimos, who make long journeys skirting ice floes in watertight skin boats, hunting arctic game as they go.

Archeologist Michael Collins of the University of Texas at Austin has an even more startling theory. The theory is based on his excavations at Gault, Texas, which show evidence of a more complex Clovis culture than ever imagined, including a diet that spans the food chain, evidence of a sophisticated trade network, hundreds of types of tools, and possibly the earliest example of art in the Americas.

And this is history 10,000 years before the earliest proposed Jaredite landing, and at least 5,000 years before the Earth assumed its temporal state.

[Dan Vogel]

Mr. Hamblin:

You have made some strong accusations about my

[Dan Vogel]

Hamlin, Nov 17 2004, 12:39 PM

But even if a "steel sword" or a Hebrew inscription were discovered in Mesoamerica it would not require a belief in the BOM, would it. There are any number of ways that could be explained. Hence the obsession with archaeological confirmation of the BOM is a red herring.

This is true. JS could get some things right, for the wrong reasons. For example, the discovery of Hebrew script could be explained by JS

[Bill Hamblin]

Vogel

The name Kish is meaningless.

Note how anti-Mormons demand that we produce BOM names in Mesoamerican inscriptions, and when we do they promptly pronounce them "meaningless." This is what they call methodology. While I agree that the name Kish is inconclusive, it is hardly meaningless. It is far more meaningful than Vogel's fantasies about Joseph's thoughts. At least it is based on evidence.

[Bill Hamblin]

Hamblin:

[Dan Vogel]

Mr. Gardener:

Thanks for the explanations of your methodology. I found them quite helpful. I have a few scattered comments.

My approach with the 19th century is to examine the rhetorical exchange between the text and its intended audience.

And such an approach is tailor made to answer questions about the 19th century audience and its experience with the text. It is not designed to determine the historicity of the text because it begins with an a historic assumption and examines that assumption inside the assumed context. Methods work for different purposes and if your purpose is to show how the LDS community developed their understanding of the BofM you have a good approach. If your intent is to discuss whether or not the text is historical, you are looking under a street lamp because the light is better there - if your are familiar with the old joke.

Yes, I