rongo Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 Depends on the critic and the apologist. I don't see a lot of difference when either side declares "victory." Reasonable critics, like Chris Smith or Dan Vogel, tend not to do a lot of crowing. Reasonable apologists, like David Bokovoy or Kevin Barney, don't crow much, either, from what I've seen. But your average board poster, critic or apologist, is a different beast altogether, don't you think?I don't see the two "extremes" as balancing each other out equally. Do you?
jkwilliams Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 I don't see the two "extremes" as balancing each other out equally. Do you? Back when I was an amateur Mormon apologist on a.r.m. and elsewhere, I got a lot of hostile attacks from critics. When I "switched teams," I got about the same from self-styled apologists (and still do). Just the other day I was attacked by an apologist for daring to say that the behavior of idiots in Goblin Valley doesn't have anything to do with the LDS church. So, I'm kind of the wrong person to ask about balance.
omni Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 I think if anything this work certainly puts to bed the idea of Hebraisms as evidence for an ancient origin. The "and it came to pass" is just one of many "Hebraisms" that are found in The History of the Late War. On other discussion boards they have listed quite a few that have been used by apologists in the past to show evidence of an ancient origin only to find similar examples in Hunt's work. Here is an example of just one of those. Ch. XXVI, p. 141Quote: 18 Now there were some amongst the tribes of the savages, who had been instructed in the ways of God, and taught to walk in thepath of righteousness. Ch. III, p. 28Quote: 33 Now the smooth words of Satan tickled Caleb mightily, and he hearkened unto the counsel of the wicked one; Ch. III, p. 23Quote: 4 Then will we rule them with a rod of iron; and they shall be, unto us, hewers of wood and drawers of water. Ch. XV, p. 81Quote: 17 And the winds moved the vessels about, and they strove to avoid the balls of lead, and the heavy balls of iron, that whistled about them in multitudes. Ch. XXI, p. 119Quote: 38 Thy wickedness shall be written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond.
volgadon Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 I think if anything this work certainly puts to bed the idea of Hebraisms as evidence for an ancient origin. The "and it came to pass" is just one of many "Hebraisms" that are found in The History of the Late War. On other discussion boards they have listed quite a few that have been used by apologists in the past to show evidence of an ancient origin only to find similar examples in Hunt's work. Here is an example of just one of those. Ch. XXVI, p. 141Quote:18 Now there were some amongst the tribes of the savages, who had been instructed in the ways of God, and taught to walk in thepath of righteousness.Ch. III, p. 28Quote:33 Now the smooth words of Satan tickled Caleb mightily, and he hearkened unto the counsel of the wicked one;Ch. III, p. 23Quote:4 Then will we rule them with a rod of iron; and they shall be, unto us, hewers of wood and drawers of water.Ch. XV, p. 81Quote:17 And the winds moved the vessels about, and they strove to avoid the balls of lead, and the heavy balls of iron, that whistled about them in multitudes.Ch. XXI, p. 119Quote:38 Thy wickedness shall be written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond. Quite a few of those are quotes from the KJV. 1
omni Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 Quite a few of those are quotes from the KJV. The point I was making is that apologists have used similar "Hebraisms" as evidence for the BoM The Hebrew Background of the Book of Mormon, by John A. TvedtnesConstruct State When English shows a possessive or descriptive relationship between two nouns, it usually puts the possessive or descriptive noun first: the king's house or wood house. Hebrew, however, uses the opposite order: house the king (which would usually be translated house of the king) or house wood (house of wood). If the Hebrew word order is kept in the English translation, the word of must be added, even though it does not exist in the Hebrew. The Book of Mormon contains a large number of what appear to be translations from the Hebrew preserving the Hebrew word order: "plates of brass" instead of brass plates (1 Nephi 3:24) "works of righteousness" instead of righteous works (Alma 5:16) "words of plainness" instead of plain words (Jacob 4:14) "chains of hell" instead of hell's chains (Alma 5:7) "voice of the Spirit" instead of the Spirit's voice(1 Nephi 4:18) "skin of blackness" instead of black skin (2 Nephi 5:21) "night of darkness" instead of dark night (Alma 34:33) "rod of iron" instead of iron rod (1 Nephi 8:19) 2
jkwilliams Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 The point I was making is that apologists have used similar "Hebraisms" as evidence for the BoM That was my point as well. It's difficult to argue that a particular construction is "Hebraic" in nature when it shows up in a popular book of the time. 1
Kevin Christensen Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 Is this the Holy Grail of criticism? Nope, but it does suggest a context within which one can place the Book of Mormon that doesn't involve an ancient setting. The frantic, never-ending search for the silver bullet is directly analogous to the never-ending search for Zarahemla in the Yucatan.It seems to me that a search for Zarahemla in the Yucatan would be never ending. Larry Poulson explains: The River Sidon, on the other hand, is mentioned over 20 times and in at least four different geographic contexts. Each of these contexts contain geographic information which should make it possible to find a river in the Americas that can be uniquely identified with the River Sidon. The description of the Nephite and Lamanite lands in Alma 22:27-34 identifies 3 specific geographic attributes relative to the River Sidon. These are: 1. Its head, source, is located in a narrow strip of wilderness. 2. The head runs from east to west 3. The narrow strip of wilderness is located south of the Land of Zarahemla and runs from an east sea to a west sea from the east to the west. If one accepts that the Book of Mormon is translated correctly from the plates given to Joseph Smith by the Angel Moroni, then the text of the book must be accepted as the most authoritative source for information relative to the geography of the Book of Mormon. Using the three dimensional satellite maps incorporated into the computer program “EARTHA Global Explorer DVD” by Delorme, a thorough search of the geography of America in 3D can be made. Such a search results in one and only one location that fits the geographic restraints imposed by the text of Alma 22:27 for the River Sidon. This is as described above for the Grijalva River, indicating that the Grijalva is the same river described as the Sidon in the Book of Mormon and as has been proposed by many proponents of Book of Mormon geographies. http://bomgeography.poulsenll.org/zarahemla.html FWIW Kevin Christensen Bethel Park, PA 1
jkwilliams Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 It seems to me that a search for Zarahemla in the Yucatan would be never ending. Larry Poulson explains: http://bomgeography.poulsenll.org/zarahemla.html FWIW Kevin Christensen Bethel Park, PA Chiapas doesn't work all that well, either, IMO. I know a guy who insists that Zarahemla is Cajamarca, Peru.
mfbukowski Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 Golly that sly old Joe must have read every book every written. That's what a PhD in literature is for after all. 2
mfbukowski Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 (edited) . We don't have a complex theory or anything, it's just a search for possible influences on the Book of Mormon.Perhaps this is the fly in the ointment- no overall theory about how this happened. I really don't care about who or how the BOM was written- I believe in it's spiritual content as spiritual and unquestionably perfectly in line with American Pragmatism. I mean Alma 32 could have been written by William James. Yet that doesn't prove that Joseph did not "receive" those truths from God- he was after all a 19th Century American and he thought like one. Whether or not it was a "translation" is immaterial to me- I take it as spiritual literature without worrying about origins- but clearly this proves nothing even about it's origin For all of these books to have influenced Joseph, he would have had to have read at least some of them. Is there any evidence for that? Or did I miss it in the thread somewhere? Edited October 22, 2013 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 You're strictly left with the loose translation theory which is very problematic in and of itself because of the "revelations" concerning the book and also many of the descriptions of the translation process.Oh I think you really need to read Blake Ostler's "expansion" theory of translation on this one. http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V20N01_68.pdf It's not problematic at all.
mfbukowski Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 I'm also pleased that we are getting so many new members who have been influenced by the Book of Mormon. Everywhere I go, I see people buying "Gold and Silver"!!! It's very gratifying to know how much the Book of Mormon has influenced interstate commerce. You never see "silver and gold", do you?
nealr Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 These phrases are found in the original 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon. Copyright was not a well-understood concept at the time, so most books that I've seen in this era refer to the act of congress that established rights for the author: Most of the phrases you cite, however, are insignificant in their impact on the matches, however. If you look at the right-hand column of our work, you'll see a "significance score" which weights the matched phrases according to the inverse of the frequence of the phrase in a baseline sample of 5000 contemporary books. So for example, "united states of america" is likely to occur ~2504 times in a sample size of 5000 books, so it only gets a weight of 1/2504 = 0.000399361. As to the "double dipping" comment, I think this is a legitimate concern. We would like to do larger phrase sequences (we call them 3-word-sequences "3grams", and 4-word-sequences "4grams" etc.) however, it's a little more complex to remove strings without taking quite a bit more computation. Several people wanted to see our results now, so rather than trying to be 100% sure of ourselves before peer review, we opted for earlier release and welcome others to participate in vetting our data and process. I am frankly at a lose at to why you are using the copyright notice at all. Shouldn't this analysis be limited to the portion of the text that is allegedly a translation from an ancient text? 1
langbert Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 For in those days there shall also arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch, that, if possible, they shall deceive the very elect, who are the elect according to the covenant. [JS-M 1:22] Please note, I am in no way offering that the Late War is (necessarily) a false prophet. However, it meets the test of our time: that which may "deceive the very elect." That is to say, just be careful in your calculations. I've read school texts from early America. The language in use at the time was remarkable. No one need think this particular text is anything more extraordinary than it already is. Mormon's compiled, transliterated, translated Bible is still the most perfect text. The shoe fits. It's conditional to our understanding and times, but dig deep, and the spirit—like a laser—speaks to its truth. I actually think the Late War could be a very useful study in understanding (further) the language and context of the time—opposition for some, but a strength if you can get past the stumbling part.
cognitiveharmony Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 Oh I think you really need to read Blake Ostler's "expansion" theory of translation on this one. http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V20N01_68.pdf It's not problematic at all. Not problematic at all? Wow. If this theory isn't problematic, I'd like to see the missionaries start using it in their discussions. j/k I read the entire essay and I dare say I saw nothing but problems. First of all, there are only a few detailed explanations of the translation process by eye witnesses. These testimonies of the translation process are not even presented in his paper? Why? Does he not believe the strength of his argument could overcome eyewitness testimony? Maybe. I personally think he didn't include it because he wanted to give his own exhaustive explanation of what revelation/translation is and those accounts would have interfered with his line of reasoning. Needless to say I was very unconvinced by any of it. In my opinion the comparisons with ancient forms were forced and full of conjecture. He takes a verse from the BOM and then fills in the blanks to make it equivalent to what would be expected to make it authentic. I'm sorry but equating one of the reasons for the gathering to take place to be a census and then equate that to King Benjamin stating that the people were too numerous to be counted is reaching to say the least. "Well we wanted to count you and keep a census but, to heck with it, there's too dang many of you". This whole sequence fits much better into a revival scene than the festival that he and his sources try to force it into. I believe that Blake even comments that he believes that Joseph himself believed it to be some type of revival camp. The lawsuit also does not fit tightly with the biblical pattern but loosely and Blake explains this as being expansion of the text. I would agree but I believe the text that he is expanding is an ad hoc rendering of a biblical type trial. I would expect this to be the case if JS had access to a KJV bible which the paper acknowledges. He would have read numerous examples of this and had a general outline to pattern his fictional account after. It's very simple logic. I've actually heard apologists say that there is no proof that JS ever owned a KJV Bible. I always counter this with the word for word transliteration of the KJV text to the BOM in so many instances is in fact PROOF that he owned a KJV bible. I would answer the 3rd ancient text proof the same way I answer the 2nd. It was just Joseph's way of telling the story of how a prophet is called and is patterned after what he had read in the bible along with a little of his own spin. Nothing less, nothing more. I know that Blake alludes to a chance that Joseph may have read these things in the Old testament and used them to produce these passages but he dismisses any chance of Joseph actually consciously doing it. Why? If I were writing a book in which I was attempting to imitate biblical writings, I would examine the source closely for patterns, language etc. I would say that if we establish the fact that these forms can be recognized (and I think his paper has), then it stands to reason that Joseph could have recognized them. And furthermore, the presence of these forms in the text of the BOM seems to indicate that he did in fact recognize them at least on some level. I'm also a little curious about Blake's diatribe on revelation. I believe that he was writing what he sincerely believes but this whole line of reasoning left a lot of questions in my mind. Such as how is this explanation rational given the example of the D&C? These revelations are given first person as if God is speaking directly to JS. How could Blake's description of revelation possibly be accurately describing these revelations? I don't believe in either of these books and I'm having a tough time reconciling this. How is a faithful member supposed to reconcile it? I would also reference you to Skousen's writings on this subject regarding his study of the actual manuscripts and eye witness testimony that brings up a whole other list of problems for the expansion theory. Of course I'm sure you're probably already very familiar. Thanks for the link. It was an interesting read and I actually enjoyed researching this. So I of course stand by my original assertion. This text forces the loose translation theory which in my opinion is very problematic but not nearly as untenable as the tight translation theory has now become. 1
HairBear Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 (edited) This find does kind of destroy Richard Dawkins's arguement against the Book of Mormon as mentioned in the Interpreter - “This was a 19th century book written in 16th century English. That’s not the way people talked in the 19th century – it’s a fake. So it’s not beautiful, it’s a work of charlatanry.” http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/joseph-smith-richard-dawkins-and-the-language-of-translation/ Edited October 22, 2013 by HairBear
Tacenda Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 I like the quote I heard repeated about someone, on a recent podcast on Mormon Matters.... not word for word but the jist was..."I don't believe in any book, just in where the book leads me". 1
jkwilliams Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 Golly that sly old Joe must have read every book every written. That's what a PhD in literature is for after all. Surely you can't be this obtuse.
cdowis Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 That was my point as well. It's difficult to argue that a particular construction is "Hebraic" in nature when it shows up in a popular book of the time. As you have discovered, there is alot of very poor apologetics on the internet.
jkwilliams Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 As you have discovered, there is alot of very poor apologetics on the internet. I'm referring to Maxwell Institute and FAIR apologetics. For example, some of the Hebraisms in the following summary show up in Hunt's book: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms
cdowis Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 I'm referring to Maxwell Institute and FAIR apologetics. So am I. 1
jkwilliams Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 So am I. So, you think the MI has done some poor apologists. Can't argue with you there.
Peppermint Patty Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 I don't know if this will be of interest, but someone posted a link from several years that lists side by side possible parallels between the The Great War and The Book of Mormon. http://www.rickgrunder.com/parallels/mp193.pdf Some of them are interesting. 1
canard78 Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 By all accounts, the visit to Mitchill was made well after witnesses had significant exposure to the "voice" and verbiage of the Book of Mormon. I love the "Holy Grail" mentality of critics of the Restoration. The frantic, never-ending search for the silver bullet is informative and entertaining. First, you don't have to be a critic of the Restoration to look at multiple perspectives of the origins of the Book of Mormon. I'm certainly not on a frantic search for a silver bullet. Second, Mitchill met Martin Harris in 1828 before he acted as scribe. He gave Martin an oration on "a nation now extinct." But I don't see what relevance the "voice and verbiage" has on the witnesses before the meeting?
jkwilliams Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 I don't know if this will be of interest, but someone posted a link from several years that lists side by side possible parallels between the The Great War and The Book of Mormon. http://www.rickgrunder.com/parallels/mp193.pdf Some of them are interesting. He needs a decent editor, but yes, some of this is quite interesting, such as the presence of "Hebraisms" in Hunt's book.
Recommended Posts