Bill Hamblin Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 LOL... Thanks...you literally made me laugh out loud...To your point...ahhh...yes, I'm quite familor with Historical and/or Higher Criticism Methods. Surprized that you would bring it up actually. By every independant (non-LDS) study that I've ever seen and even by some studies by some LDS members using higher criticism their studies have concluded that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work. But if you are aware of any non-LDS studies that came to a different conclusion I'd love to read them.One of the principles of standard historical method is that you actually read a scholars work and be able to accurately summarize it before criticizing it. Just a thought.
Craig Paxton Posted January 13, 2012 Author Posted January 13, 2012 Fallacy alert.Hey Craig, if you can find any LDS studies that conclude that the BoM is false I would love to read them.This argument that you present is really one of the worst I have seen. You limit the playing field, then declare victory. This used to work when I was 12. I soon realized the weakness of the argument. I would suggest a different approach.Note my carefully chosen words...I didn't say LDS studies...I said "...studies done by some LDS members" no fallacy today Mola...
altersteve Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 But if you are aware of any non-LDS studies that came to a different conclusion I'd love to read them.There are no non-LDS studies that come to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is not a 19th century work. You should know the reason for this:A knowledge that the Book of Mormon is not a 19th century work comes only by the Holy Ghost.
Kevin Christensen Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 There are no non-LDS studies that come to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is not a 19th century work. You should know the reason for this:A knowledge that the Book of Mormon is not a 19th century work comes only by the Holy Ghost.Try this from Margaret Barker, Washington DC, 2005.http://www.joehunt.org/joseph-smith-margaret-barker-talk.htmlKevin ChristensenBethel Park, PA
Kenngo1969 Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) Try this from Margaret Barker, Washington DC, 2005.http://www.joehunt.o...arker-talk.htmlKevin ChristensenBethel Park, PAThis will be dismissed by the critics in ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... Edited January 13, 2012 by Kenngo1969
Kevin Christensen Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 LOL... Thanks...you literally made me laugh out loud...To your point...ahhh...yes, I'm quite familor with Historical and/or Higher Criticism Methods. Surprized that you would bring it up actually. By every independant (non-LDS) study that I've ever seen and even by some studies by some LDS members using higher criticism their studies have concluded that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work. But if you are aware of any non-LDS studies that came to a different conclusion I'd love to read them.This, from 2008, LDS scholar Mark Wright, who recently finished his Ph.D: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/33478-historicity-of-bom/ Mark Wright Posted 01 March 2008 - 09:12 PM In answer to the question, "If there are history PhDs or professional archaeologists who converted to Mormonism after analyzing the BoM and finding it compellingly authentic, please, tell us who they are." I can name two: Alejandro Sarabia, the current site director of Teotihuacan (the largest archaeological zone in all of Mesoamerica) and his wife, Dr. Kim Goldsmith (PhD, UC Riverside Dept of Anthropology, dissertation on ceramics of Teotihuacan). They both joined the church several years ago after meeting some missionaries proselyting outside the gates of the Teo. Kim and Alejandro just got sealed last March. Both of them joined the church many, many years after earning their degrees in archaeology and both have decades of research under their belts at Teotihuacan (a site which was flourishing in Book of Mormon times, incidentally). I will serve as a primary source on this information, since I know Kim and her husband, and had lunch with them down in Teo just a few weeks ago.As for the opinion of most Mesoamerican scholars, the vast majority of them have no clue what the Book of Mormon says and most will never take the time to read it. Most of what they think they know about it comes from psuedoscholars who publish their misinformed junk science that fills the shelves of Deseret Book. As a Mesoamericanist, the only books I can really recommend on the subject that contain current scholarship are Brant's new volumes, but I don't know any scholars would take the time to read a six-volume set. Most won't take the time to respond to an email (I'm not kidding). As for how archaeologists who happen to be Mormon are concerned, they are well respected in the field. I'm at the Maya Meetings at Texas right now (they end tomorrow). Allen Christensen from BYU spoke to a packed house last night - everybody here absolutely adores him. He was even asked to cover MCing duty today since David Stuart's voice was going out (David Stuart is the world's leading Maya epigrapher). John Clark is also highly respected in the field, as is Richard Hansen (though he got in some hot water for consulting on Apocalypto). I know of a couple of others who are LDS (who don't make it public out of fear of being labeled crack-pots, which prejudice is based on the aforementioned junk science). My committee members all know I'm LDS, and they show me just as much respect as any other doctoral candidate. Also: Hashbaz Member: Moves Upon the WatersGroup: MembersPosts: 204Joined: 22-November 06 Posted 02 March 2008 - 08:25 PMQuoteDo they find the Book of Mormon to be historical and that was part of their conversion, or are they converts who also happen to be accomplished archaeologists?If they do consider it to be historical, what in their findings lead them to believe that?That's a fair question. The initial conversion came because of doctrinal issues that Kim had always known to be true, but she and Alex weren't actively seeking out a church. They have actually both gone on record by appearing in the new Journey of Faith film. In it Kim said she's found nothing in the Book of Mormon that contradicts anything she knows about Mesoamerica. They do consider it to be historical, and they take enormous pride working at the great city of cement northward of the ancient Maya area (compare Helaman 3:11). In general, they find the cultural parallels to be convincing, things like the presence of human sacrifice, as well as the sacrifice of animals and birds (see Alma 34:10), aspects of warfare, etc. They see the forest for the trees, as it were. There is no single bit of physical evidence that stands out to them as the most convincing, but rather the general backdrop and little clues that so clearly mark it as a Mesoamerican document.FWIW,Kevin ChristensenPittsburgh, PA 2
Craig Paxton Posted January 13, 2012 Author Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) Try this from Margaret Barker, Washington DC, 2005.http://www.joehunt.o...arker-talk.htmlKevin ChristensenBethel Park, PAThanks for the link Kevin...but what you failed to disclose (don't know why you didn't disclose this information) Is that this particular talk wasn't given at some independent presentation of some International Academic Conference at the Library of Congress as the link suggests...in reality it was a presentation at the BYU/LDS Church sponsored "Joseph Smith Bi-Centennial Conference"...at the Library of Congress. Just thought that that little tidbit of missing information might shed some light on the bias of this presentation.In the spirit of fair and balanced reporting, I think that it is important to also point out that Margaret Barker has her detractors…who call rubbish on her attempt to rewrite history in order to shape it in the manner in which she wishes it had occurred rather than in the manner in which it actually did occur (found familor?) If anyone is interested in seeing the other side of the coin, I might suggest they read. http://faithpromotin...ker-experience/ Edited January 13, 2012 by Craig Paxton
Craig Paxton Posted January 13, 2012 Author Posted January 13, 2012 This, from 2008, LDS scholar Mark Wright, who recently finished his Ph.D:http://www.mormondia...oricity-of-bom/Mark Wright Posted 01 March 2008 - 09:12 PMIn answer to the question, "If there are history PhDs or professional archaeologists who converted to Mormonism after analyzing the BoM and finding it compellingly authentic, please, tell us who they are."I can name two: Alejandro Sarabia, the current site director of Teotihuacan (the largest archaeological zone in all of Mesoamerica) and his wife, Dr. Kim Goldsmith (PhD, UC Riverside Dept of Anthropology, dissertation on ceramics of Teotihuacan). They both joined the church several years ago after meeting some missionaries proselyting outside the gates of the Teo. Kim and Alejandro just got sealed last March. Both of them joined the church many, many years after earning their degrees in archaeology and both have decades of research under their belts at Teotihuacan (a site which was flourishing in Book of Mormon times, incidentally). I will serve as a primary source on this information, since I know Kim and her husband, and had lunch with them down in Teo just a few weeks ago.As for the opinion of most Mesoamerican scholars, the vast majority of them have no clue what the Book of Mormon says and most will never take the time to read it. Most of what they think they know about it comes from psuedoscholars who publish their misinformed junk science that fills the shelves of Deseret Book. As a Mesoamericanist, the only books I can really recommend on the subject that contain current scholarship are Brant's new volumes, but I don't know any scholars would take the time to read a six-volume set. Most won't take the time to respond to an email (I'm not kidding).As for how archaeologists who happen to be Mormon are concerned, they are well respected in the field. I'm at the Maya Meetings at Texas right now (they end tomorrow). Allen Christensen from BYU spoke to a packed house last night - everybody here absolutely adores him. He was even asked to cover MCing duty today since David Stuart's voice was going out (David Stuart is the world's leading Maya epigrapher). John Clark is also highly respected in the field, as is Richard Hansen (though he got in some hot water for consulting on Apocalypto). I know of a couple of others who are LDS (who don't make it public out of fear of being labeled crack-pots, which prejudice is based on the aforementioned junk science). My committee members all know I'm LDS, and they show me just as much respect as any other doctoral candidate.Also: Hashbaz ../../uploads/av-4176.gifMember: Moves Upon the WatersGroup: MembersPosts: 204Joined: 22-November 06 Posted 02 March 2008 - 08:25 PMQuoteDo they find the Book of Mormon to be historical and that was part of their conversion, or are they converts who also happen to be accomplished archaeologists?If they do consider it to be historical, what in their findings lead them to believe that?That's a fair question. The initial conversion came because of doctrinal issues that Kim had always known to be true, but she and Alex weren't actively seeking out a church. They have actually both gone on record by appearing in the new Journey of Faith film. In it Kim said she's found nothing in the Book of Mormon that contradicts anything she knows about Mesoamerica. They do consider it to be historical, and they take enormous pride working at the great city of cement northward of the ancient Maya area (compare Helaman 3:11). In general, they find the cultural parallels to be convincing, things like the presence of human sacrifice, as well as the sacrifice of animals and birds (see Alma 34:10), aspects of warfare, etc. They see the forest for the trees, as it were. There is no single bit of physical evidence that stands out to them as the most convincing, but rather the general backdrop and little clues that so clearly mark it as a Mesoamerican document.FWIW,Kevin ChristensenPittsburgh, PAOh and thanks for answering a question I never asked...
Kevin Christensen Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) You mean, I didn't belabor the obvious and that constitutes a failure to disclose important information? Interesting.I was at the Conference. I know what it was. And before hand, none of us knew what Margaret would say. No one told her what to say.You could also observe that I didn't post the entire History of the Universe, and then claim that I suppressed it.Margaret Barker also has her supporters. I notice that you did not disclose that, for instance, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who awarded her a D.D. after reading her book, Temple Themes in Christian Worship. It is one thing to put out an opinion poll. Quite another thing to engage arguments. It is one thing to dismiss a paradigm as being "not the paradigm of the authorities I accept" and quite another to step back and explore the relative values of different paradigms in accounting for available information.How many of her books and essays have you personally read? I've read all the books, and nearly all the essays. Just for the record.And the older I get the more enlightening I find it to consider just what is contained in answers to questions that some people never think to ask.FWIW,Kevin ChristensenPittsburgh, PA Edited January 14, 2012 by Kevin Christensen 3
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) Note my carefully chosen words...I didn't say LDS studies...I said "...studies done by some LDS members" no fallacy today Mola...Stop being obtuse Craig. You are not fooling anyone. You are trying to dismiss anything that is pro LDS simply because and LDS person did it. And you are not engaging in the actual arguments. And you are parsing your words. You are essentially saying the same thing.Mr Craig who claims to be objective and unbiased is really not all that objective and unbiased. Edited January 13, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
MMMillie Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 From the Mormon Stories Podcast I really enjoyed http://mormonstories.org/?p=2322Yesterday, I saw a license plate, NHM 003
Craig Paxton Posted January 17, 2012 Author Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Ummm..I'd still apprecaite someone trying to tackle my earlier question...Assuming that the translation of the Book of Mormon was a functional one as proposed by Brant Garner. Why wouldn't this translation process apply to all words throughout the book rather than to only those particular words that have been shown to be anachronistic? Why does it only apply to difficult words like horse and chariott that have been shown to prove difficult to the truth claims of the Book of Mormon but not to cureloms and cumoms. How could the translation process be functional in one part of the Book of Mormon when we run into difficult anachronisic words but then revert to a literal translation process when we get to specific words like cureloms and cumoms? Or Did Joseph just make those words up?Also if not horse what words would Mormon have wanted Joseph to use in his functional translation...what words would have been the correct word for Joseph to use. Edited January 17, 2012 by Craig Paxton
Bob Crockett Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Ummm..I'd still apprecaite someone trying to tackle my earlier question...Assuming that the translation of the Book of Mormon was a functional one as proposed by Brant Garner. Why wouldn't this translation process apply to all words throughout the book rather than to only those particular words that have been shown to be anachronistic? Why does it only apply to difficult words like horse and chariott that have been shown to prove difficult to the truth claims of the Book of Mormon but not to cureloms and cumoms. How could the translation process be functional in one part of the Book of Mormon when we run into difficult anachronisic words but then revert to a literal translation process when we get to specific words like cureloms and cumoms? Or Did Joseph just make those words up?Also if not horse what words would Mormon have wanted Joseph to use in his functional translation...what words would have been the correct word for Joseph to use.I don't agree with some of Brant's new book, as entertaining and enlightening as it is.I see "translate" as something other than even Brant describes, as he spends a good part of Vol. 1 talking about traditional translation. Translation means different things in the Christian context that it does in the secular context. Heb. 11:5. Indeed, in the KJV the word "translate" does not mean interpreting a foreign text. It means "change."But, merely because Joseph Smith might have used a "functional" translation for some things -- horse, chariot, "dumb ***" and so forth doesn't mean that he always used a functional translation. Sure, "curelom and cumon" seem like they might be made-up words, but no more so than "Liahona." Edited January 17, 2012 by Bob Crockett
Craig Paxton Posted January 17, 2012 Author Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) I don't agree with some of Brant's new book, as entertaining and enlightening as it is.I see "translate" as something other than even Brant describes, as he spends a good part of Vol. 1 talking about traditional translation. Translation means different things in the Christian context that it does in the secular context. Heb. 11:5. Indeed, in the KJV the word "translate" does not mean interpreting a foreign text. It means "change."But, merely because Joseph Smith might have used a "functional" translation for some things -- horse, chariot, "dumb ***" and so forth doesn't mean that he always used a functional translation. Sure, "curelom and cumon" seem like they might be made-up words, but no more so than "Liahona."Pick One. Literal or Functional...and defend it. Am I the only one that finds it difficult to wrape my brain around this? How can the translating be literal in parts of the Book of Mormon... particulairly when it is convenient to BoM truth claims...then switched to a functional translation process when it is not convenient to these truth claims.Was it functional or literal? If both...why was it both only when it helps dig the Book of Mormon truth claim out of a hole? Sorry but I'm not buying it... Edited January 17, 2012 by Craig Paxton
Pahoran Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Pick One. Literal or Functional...and defend it.Ah. The fallacy of the false dilemma: conclusive evidence that the poster is not making a good faith effort to discuss anything.Have you not actually made any effort to follow the discussion, Craig? Any long translation is going to be a mix of functional and literal, unless the translator arbitrarily tries to "pick one" and stick to it throughout; and that will rarely be successful anyway. Am I the only one that finds it difficult to wrape my brain around this?Yes.Regards,Pahoran 1
Rivers Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Brant…I wonder if you might enlighten us further on which other words in the Book of Mormon fell victim to Joseph’s functional translation process other than horse, chariot, skins of blackness, wheat, barley, fig, elephant, pig, synagogue, silk, cement, glass, bellows, brass, breast plates, chains, copper, iron, ore, plows, silver, swords, steel. The Greek names Lachoneus, Timothy, Jonas, oh and Christ; the 3 letter word for donkey, bull, calf, cattle, cow, domestic goat, ox, domestic sheep, sow and swine….to name just a few. Or was his functional translation process only limited to words that cast doubt on Book of Mormon claims? And if not...why doesn't this translation process cast doubt on every word in the Book of Mormon?And I wonder if you might also enlighten us on what words Mormon might have wanted Joseph to correctly translate to describe the animals and objects he wrote about on the golden plates that Joseph got wrong? Or in other words, what animal or object or even noun might Mormon (the abridger of the golden plates) have preferred Joseph to use in place of horse or any of the other words mentioned above that resulted in functional translation errors? Clearly Mormon didn’t mean horse when Joseph dictated horse…so what word did Mormon want Joseph to dictate?I also noticed that no one has yet explained how Joseph’s functional translation process works when applied in equal fashion to specific Jaradite animal names such as cureloms and cumoms? Why is your premise applicable for the specific word horse, yet not applicable with other specific words like cureloms and cumoms…are you suggesting that Joseph simply made up these words whole cloth?Brant…I know you don’t feel that I “get it”…but I believe that a more accurate statement would be that I “don’t buy it”.Maybe you should read his book. It might make a little more sense. He does address all of these questions.
Bob Crockett Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Pick One. Literal or Functional...and defend it. Am I the only one that finds it difficult to wrape my brain around this? How can the translating be literal in parts of the Book of Mormon... particulairly when it is convenient to BoM truth claims...then switched to a functional translation process when it is not convenient to these truth claims.Was it functional or literal? If both...why was it both only when it helps dig the Book of Mormon truth claim out of a hole? Sorry but I'm not buying it...I apologize if my prior post was not specific. I accept neither definition of "functional or literal" and I do not accept all of or many of Brant's philosophies about translation. As I pointed out, the word "translate" has a non-secular meaning in the KJV of the Bible.Joseph Smith said nothing about the translation himself except that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God. As Brant points out in his interview, when pressed by Hyrum for a better explanation, Joseph demurred except to say that God did not intend that anything else be known about it.So that means that Brant wades into areas in which the Lord did not intend that we know anything. I suppose that is acceptable scholarship, but it would be speculation nonetheless. There is no doubt the Book of Mormon is filled with anachronisms (just as is the Bible, or American archaeological findings, for that matter) which one could look at and say that the Book was made up in the 19th Century. An attempt to minimize those anachronisms with an explanation of "functional" translation has about as much value to me as arguing for an LGT to explain away the absence of finds in New York.Further, I had substantial doubt as to whether those claiming to be witnesses to the mechanics of the process actually saw it unfolding. None of them say they saw the translation unfolding except perhaps Emma and then I still suspect that she is just repeating what others were saying.So, I don't believe one should "pick" between two choices, neither of which are supportable by the Lord's revelation or from the mouth of Joseph Smith. Edited January 17, 2012 by Bob Crockett
Craig Paxton Posted January 17, 2012 Author Posted January 17, 2012 Ah. The fallacy of the false dilemma: conclusive evidence that the poster is not making a good faith effort to discuss anything.Have you not actually made any effort to follow the discussion, Craig? Any long translation is going to be a mix of functional and literal, unless the translator arbitrarily tries to "pick one" and stick to it throughout; and that will rarely be successful anyway.Yes.Regards,PahoranThanks Pahoran...I appreciate the candor...So Joseph used BOTH a literal translation when it served his needs and a functional translation when that method served his needs...The manner in which we determine which method he used is whether or not there are any anachronisms in the text. Fair enough....and quite convenient wouldn't you say?
Bill Hamblin Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Thanks Pahoran...I appreciate the candor...So Joseph used BOTH a literal translation when it served his needs and a functional translation when that method served his needs...The manner in which we determine which method he used is whether or not there are any anachronisms in the text. Fair enough....and quite convenient wouldn't you say?I suspect you were monolingual, right?Actually, I am quite confident that Joseph Smith employed in many different forms of translation as he works through the book of Mormon because that is precisely what I do when I translate. It is constantly a juggling act between literal, symbolic, functional, etc. Idioms, for example, are impossible to translate literally. Likewise symbols tend to be very difficult to translate between cultures in a literal sense. It is simply unclear to me why you think this is a problem. 2
Craig Paxton Posted January 18, 2012 Author Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) I suspect you were monolingual, right?Actually, I am quite confident that Joseph Smith employed in many different forms of translation as he works through the book of Mormon because that is precisely what I do when I translate. It is constantly a juggling act between literal, symbolic, functional, etc. Idioms, for example, are impossible to translate literally. Likewise symbols tend to be very difficult to translate between cultures in a literal sense. It is simply unclear to me why you think this is a problem.Clearly I'm not as intelligent as you are...while I understand that not all foreign words translate directly from one language to another...and I understand that a literal translation would be employed when there is a direct correlation between word meanings when two different languages are being translated. And I understand that in situations when there is no word for word translation possible that a translator must use words that express the essence of the original word meaning…But I don’t see that happening in the Book of Mormon….especially since functional translation claims are only being employed when anachronism are being confronted. Instead what we see are specific words either with known meaning…such as horse and chariot or words with no meaning such as Cureloms and Cumoms. Only in the case of the literal word liahona is there any evidence that a literal translation method is being employed where at least the supposed translator offers an explanation for what a liahona actually is.Yet with the other supposed literal translation example…we are left to wonder what Curelom or Cumom are other than, like elephants…they are useful to man…but why compare cureloms and Cumoms to yet another anachronism in the Book of Mormon if Joseph was trying to help us understand what they were…why compare a literal translation (curelom and cumom) to a functional translation (elephant) animal? Sorry but this makes no sence.If Joseph is using a mixed translation process of literal and functional…we wouldn’t see a combination of elephant and cureloms, functional and literal in the exact same sentence. Edited January 18, 2012 by Craig Paxton
Recommended Posts