Brant Garner'S Mormon Stories Podcast

[Freedom]

<p>

Some more thoughts on why I don't get it. Why not just choose to have</p>

<div>faith?

</div>

<div> </div>

<div>I have faith in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I do not have faith in the geography of the Book of Mormon. Faith does not address academia. It does not help us understand when Jesus was born or when the flood occurred. </div>

<p> </p>

<div>

Why not believe that the BOM means what it says and says what it means?

</div>

<div> </div>

<div>Because it does not provide enough context to know what it means in many instances. We do not understand the culture of the time so we cannot be certain what many expressions or names refer to. Our problem is that we are applying 21st century meaning to 2 century bc expressions from a language that no longer exists. </div>

<p> </p>

<div>

Why not believe that the prophets of today and the past are led by inspiration and that they won't lead the church astray?

</div>

<p>I do believe this, but this has nothing to do with the use of certian words or expressions in the text. Unless a prophet comes out and says horse means horse, and they used the same way we use them in North America today. I am not aware of any such statements.</p>

<p> </p>

<div>

Why does there need to be a functional translation? Why can't the power of God give Joseph the proper word for an animal?

</div>

<p> </p>

<p>Why does He have to? If He wanted it to be word perfect, why wouldn't he just do it himself and provide Joseph a copy? Why go through this whole problematic process?</p>

<p> </p>

<div>

Why did God display horse in the seer stone and not something better? Why can't defenders just choose to believe that the words are correct in the most correct book of any on earth?

</div>

<p> </p>

<p>We don't know if it did appear. He used the seer stone for part of the translating work but not for all of it. Why would God allow Joshua to be deceived? Why did he make Moses the mouthpiece when he struggled with public speaking? Why did God not tell Moses how to organize the Israelite? Why did it take advise from his father in law before he established a hierarchy of authority?</p>

<p> </p>

<div>

It was written for our day, our modem day, for people with modern ideas and modern experiences. It wasn't written for the nephites or the jaredites or the mulekites. Is the answer to these questions that they don't really believe in it, they believe in their own ideas? They only think they believe in the church? Maybe that is enough for some but for me it has to be true without excuses, long intellectual explanations or advanced institutional degrees. Just some thoughts.

</div>

<div>It is a matter of perspective, but from my perspective, none of the issues at hand have anything to do with the doctrines of the church. Whether it was a horse or a dolphin makes no difference to the principles of faith, repentance, baptism and so forth. Besides, what is more important, having the correct animal name or providing the cure for cancer? Why, if God was trying to provide his prophet with great wisdom, did He not tell Joseph or Abraham for that matter, how to property deal with viruses? What about spinal injuries or mental illness? We get hung up on textual problems with a book that belongs to a civilization that we know nothing about. We have no reference points. We are trying to guess at what it means. This is how research into ancient civilizations work. See my comments on the Olmecs. </div>

[Freedom]

Ok ... horse doesn't mean horse and chariot doesn't mean chariot...and words have no meaning....but horse must mean something right? So for the sake of discussion...I'm going to assign the meaning of horse as "mysterious-Nephite-maybe-an-animal-thingie". So Joseph...when he came to the Nephite charactor for "mysterious-Nephite-maybe-an-animal-thingie" in the golden plates...that were incidently sitting outside his cabin in some hollowed out log...instead of saying what the nephite charactor actually said "mysterious-Nephite-maybe-an-animal-thingie"....he simply said "horse". All well and good... SOOOOOOO.....why didn't he just do the same thing when he came to an even more enigmatic "mysterious-Jaradite-maybe-an-animal-thingie" he called cureloms and cumoms...I mean if words have no meaning...why use words that seem so specific that Joseph use quite a specific name...rather than just calling them "horse"...that is if words don't have any meaning...hey just asking

Have you never studied ancient texts or foreign languages?

[Stargazer]

Brant I have great respect for you and your argument...it helps to explain away alot of the problems found in the BoM...You have thought outside the box...and I applaude you for that...I just have difficulty wrapping my logical brain around the concept of words not meaning what they say...I get your're flex-mode translation process....where Joseph used words he was familor with even when the actual Nephite words didn't share the same meaning...but the believablity alarm is ringing off the wall... (speaking for myself only)

PS: You have ALWYS shown me nothing but greatest of respect on this board...you are truely a gentleman and a scholar

I haven't listened to this interview (I may get around to it eventually), but some of these word arguments are of interest to me because of my native American background.

Some of my ancestors were members of the now-greatly-diminished Konkow (Koyoongk''awi) tribe of Maidu of Northern California. Our dialect of the Maidu language is now not widely spoken (only two or three native speakers are left), but there has been some attempt to revive the dialect (or at least a modern version of it). Accordingly, I know a few words of Old Konkow. One of them is shu-min, which means "deer" (in the plural). The interesting part of this and why I bring it up is because in contemporary reports of the usage of the word, when Konkow saw either bovine cattle or horses, they used their word for "deer" -- not having any native word for these newly-introduced animals.

Rather than come up with large numbers of words like "cumom" and "curelom" for animals that didn't have an exact counterpart in English, why not re-use words referring to similar but not identical animals in the context of Joseph's world? God is not then fumbling over the exact meaning of "IS", but is getting as close as reasonably possible.

Just my 2 cents.

[mikeuu]

So you have provided some examples of some early assumption based on what was known at the time, assumptions that were not taught in general conference and were not presented as doctrine. If you read more current articles in the church magazines, you will see the more current research being presented. You then provide a quote that tells us that a prophet does not require special earthly credentials to be a prophet. I am not clear what this has to do with the issue at hand. None of this suggest that prophets have a special knowledge of history, medicine, physics, botany or any other fields. They are prophets, here to lead us back to God. The esoterics involved with analyzing the text of the Book of Mormon are not relevant to that mandate in my opinion.

The scriptures teach us that God teaches line upon line. He provides us with what is necessary for our salvation and leaves us to figure out the rest on our own.

That is fine if you don't believe in it. I prefer my prophets to be somewhat special I guess.

[mikeuu]

>It is a matter of perspective, but from my perspective, none of the issues at hand have anything to do with the doctrines of the church. Whether it was a horse or a dolphin makes no difference to the principles of faith, repentance, baptism and so forth. Besides, what is more important, having the correct animal name or providing the cure for cancer? Why, if God was trying to provide his prophet with great wisdom, did He not tell Joseph or Abraham for that matter, how to property deal with viruses? What about spinal injuries or mental illness? We get hung up on textual problems with a book that belongs to a civilization that we know nothing about. We have no reference points. We are trying to guess at what it means. This is how research into ancient civilizations work. See my comments on the Olmecs. </div>

It has to do with the doctrine of the BOM being the keystone and most correct book of any on earth. If it isn't correct then the keystone crumbles. If a horse isn't a horse what else isn't what it says it is?

[Craig Paxton]

We can turn this question around: Can you provide a record of a real people other than the Olmecs or those of Santa Rosa that left not one shred of written evidence of their existence? What we have in central america is pots and pans. The written record is limited to government sponsored plaques that justify the authority of the ruling elite. We have no written record of any of the civilizations so all we know about them is strictly conjecture. It is pretty clear, for example, that the Olmecs had 5 gods but this is concluded simply because we have stone carvings that depict supernatural beings such as the Dragon which is thought to be the god of earth, water, agriculture and fertility and who fought to protect his human children. (fighting like dragons mentioned in the book of mormon? must be an anachronism!). We know virtually nothing of the people that lived at La Venta or San Lorenzo. Nobody has even the faintest clue as to how these ceremonial cities and their hinterlands became completely depopulated. Nobody is able to reasonably explain how some of the massive stone heads arrived there from, in some cases, hundreds of kilometers away without wheeled transport, pack animals, and adequate river systems between locations. If the evidence were written in a book and not found in the ground, it would be too ridiculous to believe. More than one expert refer to these findings as 'the La Venta Paradox' (see The Olmecs, Americas first Civilization. Richard A Diel, 2004 among others). So you claim we have a book that cannot find a location, I say we have a civilization that cannot find a book. It cannot be explained by the evidence because in many cases, the evidence is so counter intuitive.

It is easy to dismiss an argument if you want it to be dismissed, it is much more difficult to dismiss an argument if you are actually aware of the issues with central american archaeology.

From a believing LDS prespective the only ancient civilization that ever existed that left no evidence of its existance is the Nephite/Lamanite/Jaradite civilizations...all other civilizations that left no evidence of their existance are fictional

[Gervin]

Besides, what is more important, having the correct animal name or providing the cure for cancer?

Life is life and fun is fun, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die.

[Kevin Christensen]

If a horse isn't what I interpret as horse, based on my own cultural conditioning, language horizons, and reluctance to consider words as signs, as signifiers of things, as resources for a translator, not the actual things, then how can I be certain of anything? And without absolute certainty about everything, then what? Without absolute certainty, how can I have faith?

(Pause for the arrival of the Irony Police).

Joseph Smith himself on translation, from D&C 128:18

"I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands."

Consider a translation and a translation artifact from the King James Translation: Matthew 5:14-15

Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

When Jesus spoke, candles had not been invented. Does this mean not only that the passage is meaningless, that words have no meaning anywhere, that scholars or prophets or any source of knowledge can't be trusted, that, in actual fact, the sky is falling? Or, does it mean that as a functional translation of an idea, for the purposes of the translator that "candle" does the job as well as "olive oil lamp", particularly for an audience that had never seen and did not use olive oil lamps but who were familiar with candles?

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited January 6, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[mikeuu]

If a horse isn't what I interpret as horse, based on my own cultural conditioning, language horizons, and reluctance to consider words as signs, as signifiers of things, as resources for a translator, not the actual things, then how can I be certain of anything? And without absolute certainty about everything, then what? Without absolute certainly, how can I have faith?

(Pause for the arrival of the Irony Police).

Joseph Smith himself on translation, from D&C 128:18

"I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands."

Consider a translation and a translation artifact from the King James Translation: Matthew 5:14-15

Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

When Jesus spoke, candles had not been invented. Does this mean not only that the passage is meaningless, that words have no meaning anywhere, that scholars or prophets or any source of knowledge can't be trusted, that, in actual fact, the sky is falling? Or, does it mean that as a functional translation of an idea, for the purposes of the translator that "candle" does the job as well as "olive oil lamp", particularly for an audience that had never seen and did not use olive oil lamps but who were familiar with candles?

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I always like what you write.

We only believe in the bible as it is translated correctly so we can forgive the candle and anything else. The BOM we know is the word of God.

[Freedom]

That is fine if you don't believe in it. I prefer my prophets to be somewhat special I guess.

If I don't believe in what? Special in what manner? I am not sure what you are expecting of the prophet. Do you expect them to be experts in every field?

[Freedom]

From a believing LDS prespective the only ancient civilization that ever existed that left no evidence of its existance is the Nephite/Lamanite/Jaradite civilizations...all other civilizations that left no evidence of their existance are fictional

I find this statement to be problematic. We have no written record of any of the civilizations in mesoamerica so there is no way to know if the events written in the Book of Mormon did not occur there. All we have are pots and pans, we have no written history. The evidence of the Nephites is that there were civilizations there that follow the timeline of the Book of Mormon. There is no evidence of the bible and the archaeological evidence does not support the text. It rarely if ever does. The only comparison you can make is other ancient texts. The bible is our best comparison and it compares quite nicely with the book of mormon.

[Freedom]

I always like what you write.

We only believe in the bible as it is translated correctly so we can forgive the candle and anything else. The BOM we know is the word of God.

The errors in the bible that the Lord was concerned about were the doctrines, not the manner of language. The Book of Mormon is the word of God but it is never put forward as perfect. The doctrines are pure, that is what the author was mandated to transmit.

[Craig Paxton]

Have you never studied ancient texts or foreign languages?

Umm interesting that you should ask...Yes I am fluent in several of the latin root languages...French, Italian, Spanish and some Czech (not a latin root language) As for ancient languages, I can translate greek and latin (Ok I'm pulling your leg...I barely speak English)

[why me]

I always like what you write.

We only believe in the bible as it is translated correctly so we can forgive the candle and anything else. The BOM we know is the word of God.

I think that you missed the point. The translator had to use a word to convey a meaning. I would assume that at the time of jesus there was light when the sun went down. But what gave light?

[Craig Paxton]

I find this statement to be problematic. We have no written record of any of the civilizations in mesoamerica so there is no way to know if the events written in the Book of Mormon did not occur there. All we have are pots and pans, we have no written history. The evidence of the Nephites is that there were civilizations there that follow the timeline of the Book of Mormon. There is no evidence of the bible and the archaeological evidence does not support the text. It rarely if ever does. The only comparison you can make is other ancient texts. The bible is our best comparison and it compares quite nicely with the book of mormon.

Well if I might interject some...we do have Mayan pots and Mayan pans...we do not have any Nephite pots or Nephite pans

Edited January 5, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Freedom]

Umm interesting that you should ask...Yes I am fluent in several of the latin root languages...French, Italian, Spanish and some Czech (not a latin root language) As for ancient languages, I can translate greek and latin (Ok I'm pulling your leg...I barely speak English)

There are a number of papers written about this very subject that would provide better context. I understand your problem with the apologetics but from what I have read about translating, and from the little we know of the translation process, the word horse is not problematic. They may well have had horses, or the word horse could have applied to a different animal, or Joseph may have assumed something from the text and put in the wrong word. Without context, we are left to come up with creative solutions to why the word is there. The study of ancient civilizations that lack a written record follows this methodology all the time because in these incidences, they have art without an explanation and, as my comments about the Olmecs explain, the same problems arise, just from the other side of the table.

[Gervin]

There is no evidence of the bible and the archaeological evidence does not support the text. It rarely if ever does.

CFR

[sjdawg]

Reading this thread really gives me a headache. Am I the only who grew up being taught that the BOM had been translated perfectly? The bible was generally true but the translation had some issues, but the BOM translation was perfect. So perfect in fact that Joseph Smith at times spelled words out so the scribe wouldn't get them wrong. Maybe it was just me. I don't know.

[Freedom]

Well if I might interject some...we do have Mayan pots and Mayan pan...we do not have any Nephite pots or Nephite pans

You seem to have missed my point. I drive a Japanese car and use american and English dishes, but I am a Canadian. The Nephites did not have special pots that would distinguish them as Nephites any more that a mormon has special dishes that distinguishes them as Mormons or a Canadian has as a Canadian or a ping pong player as a ping pong player. My neighbor is from India and his appliances, dishes and furniture were purchased at the same stores as was mine (although his are much newer). The nephites would have used dishes and construction techniques that were common to the area. In 5,000 thousand years, if you found a house in Blain Washington and a house in Burnaby British Columbia, I doubt that you would be able to tell that they were from different countries.

If you came into my house, you would find blue Tupperware cups. Would you therefore conclude that they must not belong to me because Tupperware is an american produce and I am a Canadian? Of course not. Why do you feel that the nephite artifacts would look any different than the mayan artifacts or the Santa Rosa artifacts? If a mormon and an atheist painted a picture of the queen of england, would you be able to tell which painting belonged to which artists? I fail to see your argument.

[mikeuu]

Reading this thread really gives me a headache. Am I the only who grew up being taught that the BOM had been translated perfectly? The bible was generally true but the translation had some issues, but the BOM translation was perfect. So perfect in fact that Joseph Smith at times spelled words out so the scribe wouldn't get them wrong. Maybe it was just me. I don't know.

You are not the only one.

[sjdawg]

original manuscript supports the traditional belief that Joseph Smith received a revealed text by means of the interpreters. This idea of a controlled text originates with statements made by witnesses of the translation. The evidence from the original manuscript, when joined with internal evidence from the text itself, suggests that this control was tight, but not iron-clad. The text could be "ungrammatical" from a prescriptive point of view, but the use of nonstandard English is not evidence that the text was not being tightly controlled, or that it did not come from the Lord, who apparently does not share our insistence on "proper English" (see D&C 1:24). In fact, the occurrence of non-English Hebraisms such as the if-and construction strongly suggests that the text was tightly controlled down to the level of the word at least. This tight control is also supported by the consistent phraseology in the original text. And the spelling of names such as Coriantumr suggests that control could be imposed down to the very letter.

All of this evidence (from the witnesse's statements, the original manuscript, the printer's manuscript, and from the text itself) is thus consistent with the hypothesis that Joseph Smith could actually see (whether in the interpreters themselves or in his mind's eye) the translated English text—word for word and letter for letter—and that he read off this revealed text to his scribe. Despite Joseph's reading off of the text, one should not assume that this process was automatic or easily done. Joseph had to prepare himself spiritually for this work. Yet the evidence suggests that Joseph was not the author of the Book of Mormon, not even its English language translation, although it was revealed spiritually through him and in his own language.

http://maxwellinstit...=7&num=1&id=167

Based on this translation method I don't see much room for Joseph Smiths personal understanding or knowledge to confuse issues or muddy the waters of the "translation" It wasn't a translation but a dictation.

Edited January 5, 2012 by sjdawg

[Freedom]

CFR

It is difficult to provide references when there are none. There is no archaeological evidence of any of the events in the Bible. All we have are cities that match with the text. Archaeology does not tell a story. We have not found a graveyard that says 'Abraham was a grand old sole, he will be missed'. We have no evidence that Israel was in egypt, we do not have the cup Jesus used for his last supper, or the cross he died on. We have not found Daniels hat or Josephs cloak. The evidence we do have, in fact, puts the story of the nativity into serious question because the dates in the bible do not match the secular history.

[Gervin]

The Nephites did not have special pots that would distinguish them as Nephites any more <SNIP>

I hate to be such a CFR-driven poster, but where do come up with a statement like this? In other words, CFR that you know Nephite pottery would not reflect any Old World craftsmanship, would not contain any unique markings, or would have served any unique purposes related to their religion?

[Freedom]

Reading this thread really gives me a headache. Am I the only who grew up being taught that the BOM had been translated perfectly? The bible was generally true but the translation had some issues, but the BOM translation was perfect. So perfect in fact that Joseph Smith at times spelled words out so the scribe wouldn't get them wrong. Maybe it was just me. I don't know.

If you were taught that the Book of Mormon was translated perfectly then you were not taught at Church. Nowhere in our doctrine does it state this. It is called the most correct book, but the text itself quotes prophets apologizing for the imperfections in the text. Joseph spelling out a word does not prove it is perfect, just that Joseph had a very specific spelling in mind.

[Gervin]

There is no archaeological evidence of any of the events in the Bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezekiah's_Tunnel