How Can The Bom Be Inspired But Not Historical

[Log]

Just so long as you think Joseph was lying a bit - and, a bit can be anywhere from one false statement to all statements being false, minus one - then there goes the Restoration. Feel free to explain which of Joseph's statements about the events surrounding, and including, the Restoration, were lies, which were truths, and explain exactly what standard you applied to each to arrive at your conclusions.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Log

[Cobalt-70]

Let's go through the book and find out which statements correspond with reality.

Knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they shall be, be it remembered, is the Lord's definition of truth. Therefore, if a statement corresponds to reality - that which actually has been, actually is, and actually shall be - it is true. Whatever is more or less than truth, be it remembered, is of the devil.

"1 I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days."

Does this statement correspond to reality? A simple yes or no will suffice. Once you have given your yes or no answer, feel free to make your yes or no as nuanced as you like.

Before I answer this, please tell me whether or not you think the following corresponds to reality (Luke 18:2-5):

"

In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared what people thought. And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, ‘Grant me justice against my adversary.’ “For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, ‘Even though I don’t fear God or care what people think,

yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won’t eventually come and attack me!’" (Luke 18:2-5)

[Log]

Before I answer that, please tell me whether or not the Book of Mormon is ever presented as a parable. See, a parable which is not clearly flagged as a parable is a lie (cf Luke 18:1, which you mysteriously omit). Remember Paul H. Dunn?

Edited June 9, 2012 by Log

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't think either thing really addresses the historicity issue. Unless someone can decode the Anthon transcript and prove that it was more than random noise, then I think the transcript is a negative indicator of historicity, because it isn't a plausible linguistic variation on any Egyptian script. It would have had to have come from the book of Lehi, which was supposed to have been written in "the language of the Egyptians" (1 Ne. 1:2). You can't blame linguistic drift, unless Lehi royally messed up his teaching of the "language of the Egyptians" to his son so badly that it was unrecognizable and unrelated to Egyptian scripts already within one generation.

So the "Anthon Transcript" "isn't a plausible linguistic variation on any Egyptian script"? What does that mean? And how would "linguistic drift" not fit into the equation over a period of a thousand years of usage? Are you saying that the language or writing style would not change through time? "Unless Lehi royally messed up . . . so badly that" Nephi couldn't even get it right on the Small Plates (which Mormon did not edit)?

The testimony of the witnesses don't address historicity, because regardless of whether the witnesses saw an actual artifact when Smith opened the chest, or they just saw a vision of the artifact when Smith opened the chest, that only tells us that they saw plates. It doesn't tell us whether the plates contained an ancient history that had any linguistic relationship with the Book of Mormon.

volgadon, on 08 June 2012 - 06:21 PM, said:

Wouldn't the Book of Lehi have been Mormon's abridgedment?

Yes, you're right. I stand corrected.

So, from what part of the theoretical Book of Mormon plates do you theoretically imagine the so-called "Anthon Transcript" might have been copied? How might we determine whether it is a true copy of real Egyptian of some sort? Would a positive evaluation make it an important historical artifact?

[CASteinman]

In scenario #1, Smith was telling the truth, 100%. In scenario #2 he fibbed a bit, but he was not at all insane. If you think that seeing visions is a sign of insanity, or even that group visions are a sign of insanity, then you must already think that Smith, Cowdery, Whitmer, and Rigdon are all insane, regardless of whether or not scenario #2 is true.

In Scenario 1, you must insist that people had this same delusional vision -- even when it wasn't a vision, for months as various people heard and handled the plates through cloth or inside a box. Mind you.. its not that Joseph Smith was tricking them with fake plates or chains. Is that they were having this vision, even in times when Joseph Smith wasn't around and in instances when there was no need for faith and prayers. And it went on for months.

[Robert F. Smith]

We're talking about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, not necessarily the plates. Suppose that Joseph Smith found some one-of-a-kind ancient American artifact that had writing on it, and then put it in a chest while he divined the Book of Mormon from the seer stone in his hat. Just because some people saw that artifact doesn't mean that the Book of Mormon has anything linguistically to do with it.

No, there are other, even more plausible possibilities. I think one of these two scenarios is most probable:

1. Smith first saw the plates in a dream in his bedroom (three dreams, actually, and a dream or waking vision the next morning). He went to Cumorah where the dream told him, and then he had another vision where he saw the buried plates. Four years later, after annually going to Cumorah, he obtained a chest, took Emma with him, and understood that the plates had been captured by the chest. The plates were invisible, however, to anyone to whom God did not choose. After a few years, Smith took the three witnesses out to the woods, and they had a vision. Then he gathered the eight witnesses and had them all heft the chest. Then he had them pray fervently before allowing each of them individually the opportunity to try to see if they had enough faith to see the plates within the chest, which Smith opened for them. The whole time, Smith honestly believed that he had the plates, but that they could only be seen by the specially chosen.
   
2. Smith had the Moroni visions as in #1, but he was never actually able to recover the plates from Cumorah, despite his best magical efforts. But he was embarrassed because he had got his family's hopes up for so long, and those of his close friends. He was, after all, the golden boy who could find treasures where others couldn't. So he created a set of plates out of aged tin, inscribed some writing on them, and put them in the chest. Then he got to thinking that it really doesn't matter whether the plates were in his box, or still in the ground in Cumorah. He wasn't going to sell them anyway, or charge admission for a peek like he originally had planned. Rather, he was going to divine their translation through his seer stone. So he was willing to maintain a little trickery, knowing that ultimately he would have the translation of the plates that still resided in the hill. In the end, the mock plates would be destroyed, and he would be left with an authentic record of the ancient Indians.
   

Your scenarios here are so tortuous and implausible that it becomes easier to automatically believe in their authenticity. I am reminded of Hugh Schonfield's 1966 book, The Passover Plot, in which Jesus didn't didn't really die and was not resurrected. The plot he imagined became less believable than the Resurrection itself, leading the provost of Hebrew Union College to declare that it "should be dismissed as" a "mere curiosity" based on "dubious inferences" and self-contradictory logic. -- Rabbi Samuel Sandmel in Saturday Review, 49/49 (Dec 3, 1966), 42-43.

[DBMormon]

Your scenarios here are so tortuous and implausible that it becomes easier to automatically believe in their authenticity.

While critics find the plausibility of the Book of Mormon unlikely due to all the hoops that must be jumped through, flexibility given, and items shelved till better understanding comes. The opposite is true as well. It is difficult to write it off as simple fiction too. One has to deal with witnesses (some who shared in angelic visions), complexity of the Book of Mormon, fulfilled prophecies (even admitting that some were not fulfilled), progress of the church, miracles that have occurred along the way, Things in the Book of Mormon that Joseph got right and would have been almost impossible to guess. It really is a faith that pushes one to make a decision. One can choose not to believe and side with that evidence which is overwhelming. One can also choose to believe in Joseph and the plates and in Prophets and Apostles and there is a plethora of evidence there as well.

[Cobalt-70]

Before I answer that, please tell me whether or not the Book of Mormon is ever presented as a parable. See, a parable which is not clearly flagged as a parable is a lie (cf Luke 18:1, which you mysteriously omit). Remember Paul H. Dunn?

A story is not a lie unless the author believes the parable is a lie, and nevertheless acts with deception. I don't believe that Joseph Smith knew that Nephi was a fictional character. Therefore, Joseph Smith did not lie.

But your question was not whether 1 Nephi 1 was a lie, but whether it "corresponds with reality." In a clinical, scientific sense, a parable corresponds with reality to exactly the same degree as does a lie. In a spiritual sense, however, a parable can be more true than real history. I think the Book of Mormon, as a work of fiction, is more true than history.

[Log]

A story is not a lie unless the author believes the parable is a lie, and nevertheless acts with deception.

A story is a lie unless it is flagged as such.

I don't believe that Joseph Smith knew that Nephi was a fictional character. Therefore, Joseph Smith did not lie.

You're the one claiming that Joseph was lying about either the visits from Moroni, or the content of the visits - particularly related to the content of the Book of Mormon - aren't you?

But your question was not whether 1 Nephi 1 was a lie, but whether it "corresponds with reality." In a clinical, scientific sense, a parable corresponds with reality to exactly the same degree as does a lie.

When it is flagged as such, it ceases to be a propositional matter and becomes an illustration of principle. When it is not flagged as such, it is simply a lie. Remember, Paul H. Dunn tried the "parabolic license" excuse. It didn't wash for him. It doesn't wash for the Book of Mormon.

In a spiritual sense, however, a parable can be more true than real history.

You're committing a category error for rhetorical purposes.

I think the Book of Mormon, as a work of fiction, is more true than history.

Which begs the question.

I can well understand why you don't want to answer my direct and clear question with a direct and clear answer. But the question admits of only a yes, or no, answer.

And we can proceed to the next propositional unit in the text once we have gotten that yes, or no.

[CASteinman]

Your scenarios here are so tortuous and implausible that it becomes easier to automatically believe in their authenticity. I am reminded of Hugh Schonfield's 1966 book, The Passover Plot, in which Jesus didn't didn't really die and was not resurrected. The plot he imagined became less believable than the Resurrection itself, leading the provost of Hebrew Union College to declare that it "should be dismissed as" a "mere curiosity" based on "dubious inferences" and self-contradictory logic. -- Rabbi Samuel Sandmel in Saturday Review, 49/49 (Dec 3, 1966), 42-43.

I bought that book. It was turgid.

[CASteinman]

A story is not a lie unless the author believes the parable is a lie, and nevertheless acts with deception. I don't believe that Joseph Smith knew that Nephi was a fictional character. Therefore, Joseph Smith did not lie.

Uh huh. And he also thought the plates were real. So did his wife who handled them many times. And so did others who felt them, saw them, saw an angel, or did not see the angel and still saw the plates, and saw other artifacts.

Mass lunacy is your explanation.

[Cobalt-70]

So, from what part of the theoretical Book of Mormon plates do you theoretically imagine the so-called "Anthon Transcript" might have been copied? How might we determine whether it is a true copy of real Egyptian of some sort? Would a positive evaluation make it an important historical artifact?

It would be from the book of Lehi. It would basically be a matter of code-breaking. The same process that was used to decipher real Mesoamerican scripts. Codes can be broken, even with relatively small samples. We would be particularly aided by the knowledge that the script is a representation of a spoken Hebrew dialect which is less than a millennium removed from real Hebrew. Aren't apologists always telling us that Mormon's abridgment is chock full of Hebraisms? That seems like that would be more than enough information to break at least some of the code, if the code actually contained information.

[Log]

Codes can be broken, even with relatively small samples.

Can all codes be broken, even with relatively large samples?

If not, then why are you bringing this up as though it were relevant?

Hieroglyphs required the Rosetta stone, if I am not mistaken.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Log

[Cobalt-70]

In Scenario 1, you must insist that people had this same delusional vision -- even when it wasn't a vision, for months as various people heard and handled the plates through cloth or inside a box. Mind you.. its not that Joseph Smith was tricking them with fake plates or chains. Is that they were having this vision, even in times when Joseph Smith wasn't around and in instances when there was no need for faith and prayers. And it went on for months.

It doesn't sound like you have much respect for the reality of visions. You must not have much respect for D&C 76 or 110, then, either. Moreover, you must not believe that Nephi had the same vision of the Tree of Life that his father had.

[CASteinman]

It doesn't sound like you have much respect for the reality of visions. You must not have much respect for D&C 76 or 110, then, either. Moreover, you must not believe that Nephi had the same vision of the Tree of Life that his father had.

I don't have much respect for the physicality of visions. There is a difference between that and whether they are real.

The issue is not about real or not real. The issue is about physical. Something that is attested to by all of the witnesses and something that thereby asserts (along with the other related evidences) that the Book of Mormon is a history.

[CASteinman]

Codes can be broken, even with relatively small samples.

This is observably and reliably false. Unless by "can" you mean -- within the realm of possibility but not necessarily within the realm of reasonableness in virtually all cases".

Edited June 9, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

Can all codes be broken, even with relatively large samples?

If not, then why are you bringing this up as though it were relevant?

Hieroglyphs required the Rosetta stone, if I am not mistaken.

The Sommerton Man code has been declared by intelligence code cracking agencies to be intractable.

KRYPTOS is a complete coded message and it cannot seemingly be cracked at all.

The Zodiac killer code cannot be cracked.

There are many such things. The statement that such codes can be cracked is simply nonsense.

[Carborendum]

I believe it is inspired. I believe it to be true. I believe it to be historical, but not necessarily accurate.

The Book of Mormon is a book written for religious purposes. It was not written to be a historical record to necessarily help modern archaeologists to reconstruct the past. The reason I say this is that the authors (original, intermediate, and final) were not historians. They were prophets and average citizens. As prophets, they wrote the spiritual stories of the time. But they may have gotten their occasional historical fact wrong because they were not historians. So, we use the "history" to understand the spiritual message better. But the history is not the point of the BoM.

If I told the story of King Noah and in a sentence I said something spiritually inconsequential like "Abinadi was brought before King Noah." But what really happened was that "Abinadi came before the King." This in no way changes the spiritual message of the event. But it was historically inaccurate. I have no problem with things like this possibly existing in the BoM.

However, if there were a major matter of the "history" that was misrepresented (such as: King Noah's little kingdom never existed at all, and thus the story of Abinadi never happened) then I'd say there was a flaw. But they are the flaws of men, not of God. Ever heard of urban legends? We hear them and repeat them and they become "fact". And we use them as examples to make political and religious points all the time. Does it make the point incorrect? Possibly. But usually not.

[Cobalt-70]

While critics find the plausibility of the Book of Mormon unlikely due to all the hoops that must be jumped through, flexibility given, and items shelved till better understanding comes. The opposite is true as well. It is difficult to write it off as simple fiction too. One has to deal with witnesses (some who shared in angelic visions), complexity of the Book of Mormon, fulfilled prophecies (even admitting that some were not fulfilled), progress of the church, miracles that have occurred along the way, Things in the Book of Mormon that Joseph got right and would have been almost impossible to guess. It really is a faith that pushes one to make a decision. One can choose not to believe and side with that evidence which is overwhelming. One can also choose to believe in Joseph and the plates and in Prophets and Apostles and there is a plethora of evidence there as well.

From my perspective, the problem is that people feel that faith in the Book of Mormon as scripture is not enough, and that it has no value (less than no value, in fact) unless its characters were real people, and the book ultimately squares with some ontological reality. Well, ontological reality is a Greek thing, not a Mormon thing, and admission to the "real" club is controlled by scientists and historians, who have not, and never will, sign on to the Book of Mormon as an ancient text. It wasn't an ancient text, except in the mythology we have constructed. But why are so many Mormon so interested in either contorting that mythology to fit with science and history, or contorting science and history to fit with the mythology?

Leave the mythology alone! The Book of Mormon doesn't need apologists limiting its geography. The Book of Mormon doesn't need apologists coming up with contorted theories to explain why nobody has Nephite DNA anymore. The apologetic explanations come across as defensive, and merely turn people off. Let's read the Book of Mormon the way it was by its own admission intended: as a solution to 19th century religious problems. And lets not be telling people that unless it's "real history," it is fraud. That's like telling people that if you don't go on a mission, you must become a prostitute.

[Cobalt-70]

The Sommerton Man code has been declared by intelligence code cracking agencies to be intractable.

KRYPTOS is a complete coded message and it cannot seemingly be cracked at all.

The Zodiac killer code cannot be cracked.

There are many such things. The statement that such codes can be cracked is simply nonsense.

These are ciphers, not language scripts. Language scripts are far easier to decode than the best ciphers, because you have contextual information, and there are no intentional obfuscations. Plus, the Anthon transcript is supposed to be (according to Moroni) graphically related to Egyptian and semantically related to Hebrew. That's a lot of information. We also know something about the subject matter, because it was from the first part of the book of Lehi.

Edited June 10, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[CASteinman]

These are ciphers

How can you be sure?

And do you really think it enhances your point, (that even short codes can be cracked) to realize that cyphers, which are generally easier to break than codes, are also not crackable?

We know the language each of the examples I gave was related to. We also know much if not all of the context. it does not help.

[altersteve]

Let's read the Book of Mormon the way it was by its own admission intended: as a solution to 19th century religious problems.

CFR that the Book of Mormon, by its own admission, is a solution to 19th-century religious problems.

[volgadon]

CFR that the Book of Mormon, by its own admission, is a solution to 19th-century religious problems.

Probably the given for our day line, but backdated to when the BoM appeared. A far from unreasonable position.

[altersteve]

Probably the given for our day line, but backdated to when the BoM appeared. A far from unreasonable position.

I guess that makes sense. But I see the Book of Mormon as far more than that. By it's own admission, it is another testament of Jesus Christ, and that's what we should be reading it as.

[Robert F. Smith]

It would be from the book of Lehi. It would basically be a matter of code-breaking. The same process that was used to decipher real Mesoamerican scripts. Codes can be broken, even with relatively small samples. We would be particularly aided by the knowledge that the script is a representation of a spoken Hebrew dialect which is less than a millennium removed from real Hebrew. Aren't apologists always telling us that Mormon's abridgment is chock full of Hebraisms? That seems like that would be more than enough information to break at least some of the code, if the code actually contained information.

These are ciphers, not language scripts. Language scripts are far easier to decode than the best ciphers, because you have contextual information, and there are no intentional obfuscations. Plus, the Anthon transcript is supposed to be (according to Moroni) graphically related to Egyptian and semantically related to Hebrew. That's a lot of information. We also know something about the subject matter, because it was from the first part of the book of Lehi.

I'm not sure why you think the AT has to be from "the first part of the book of Lehi," and therefore an example of very late Nephite writing. Why could it not be from the Small Plates and therefore an example of very early, probably hieratic Egyptian as used by Lehi & Nephi (and present also on the Brass Plates?).

Another matter is your contention that the AT is in Egyptian script, but in Hebrew language (or at least some form of each). Did Moroni actually say that? I know that more than one scholar has made that suggestion, but is there any persuasive evidence to support that notion? When Nephi initially begins his record on the Small Plates, he explicitly declares that he is making it in "the language of the Egyptians." He didn't say script (I Nephi 1:2). Likewise, why did King Benjamin see to it that his sons were trained "in the language of the Egyptians"? So that they could read the Brass Plates and other records (Mosiah 1:3-4). Presumably, if they were written in Hebrew, he would have said so. As for Moroni, he much later speaks of two very separate modes of recording at Mormon 9:32-33, and he uses Egyptian because it saves space:

32 . . . we have written this record according to our knowledge,

in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, [cf. AT "Caractors" in Joseph's hand]

being handed down and altered by us,

according to our manner of speech.

33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large

we should have written in Hebrew;

but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also;

and if we could have written in Hebrew,

behold, ye would have no imperfection in our record.

It seems clear that Hebrew was not used. And this would be backed up by the presence in the Book of Mormon of Egyptianisms which do not occur in Hebrew (while nearly all Hebraisms are equally good Egyptianisms).

Still, could such a short inscription be deciphered? Especially without a Rosetta Stone and with a millennium of linguistic change or drift? Who would you approach to decipher it? The National Security Agency?