Book Of Mormon: New Evidence Of 19Th Century Origin

[Calm]

From my perspective, all texts are literary, meaning that they follow certain patterns determined by the language used. Hayden White went so far as to suggest that all text is fictional and follows the patterns and genre of fiction. I don't see why the Bible or Book of Mormon would be exempt from that.

Your perspective perhaps...is it the authors of the study's as well? How is it being used by them?

[canadaduane]

I assume you are making a contrast between original literary works and translated texts....

Wouldn't it be necessary to show that the same isn't true of the second? Has this been done?

 

Well, yes, kind of. A literary work is something we understand: it is the application of the mind toward generating a new text. A translated work is also something we understand: it's the application of the mind to transforming a text in one language to a text in another language. The third kind, something that we are all familiar with, is the "translated by the power of God" kind, and I can't say I have a clear idea of what that entails.

[jkwilliams]

Your perspective perhaps...is it the authors of the study's as well? How is it being used by them?

I don't know. My assumption is that they mean a literary creation springing from the mind of Joseph Smith or his contemporaries, as opposed to a real record of an ancient people. I don't think you can prove that one way or the other.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Agreed!  It is like the quest for the Holy Grail and just about as reasonable.

 

The origins of the TEXT Book of Mormon are found in every work of the 19th century.  The question is- where are the origins of the doctrine.

[Calm]

Well, yes, kind of. A literary work is something we understand: it is the application of the mind toward generating a new text. A translated work is also something we understand: it's the application of the mind to transforming a text in one language to a text in another language.

So did you do comparisons with translated texts and religious texts as well as just texts in general? And if not, do you plan to and if not, why not?

 

The third kind, something that we are all familiar with, is the "translated by the power of God" kind, and I can't say I have a clear idea of what that entails.

Do you see this as problematic or something that can just be ignored? Edited October 22, 2013 by calmoriah

[jkwilliams]

Agreed!  It is like the quest for the Holy Grail and just about as reasonable.

 

The origins of the TEXT Book of Mormon are found in every work of the 19th century.  The question is- where are the origins of the doctrine.

It is refreshing to hear someone say that the historical claims don't matter. If I were still trying to believe, that might work for me.

[Calm]

BTW, I very much appreciate canadaduane showing up here to explain things. It is very helpful and interesting.

[nealr]

Does it have to be one or the other? Is it possible that Joseph Smith had input into the text of the Book of Mormon? The problem here, as I see it, is that you assume a certain method of transmission for the Book of Mormon, apparently one in which Joseph Smith is taking dictation more than he is translating. Most people who have done translation understand that the translator always has "authorial" input; otherwise, all translations of a single document would be the same. If the Johnsons are correct, it may just suggest that Joseph Smith had more input into the translation than some may think.

 

It is certainly possible, but evidence of that cannot be found simply by looking at what is in the book itself. You can't say that the literary forms in the BoM are evidence that he knew those forms, or that KJV passages are evidence that he was looking those passages. That assumes this influence where it ought to be demonstrated. 

 

As for what I do and don't assume about translation, you are making assumptions bout my assumptions, which are incorrect. I have some limited translation experience (with Latin), and it is that experience combined with my own reading of  Royal Skousen, Stephen Ricks, Brant Gardner, and Ostler, along with some of my own reading of the eye-witness statements that informs my views on the matter. Those views are nothing like what you have characterized. 

 

Again, it's not so much the language alone but combined with the content and themes that is interesting.

 

 

I don't find the content and themes all that similar, but to each his own. Nonetheless, in the discussion in which I was engaged with cognitiveharmony, I did not get the impression that it was about much more than language.  

[jkwilliams]

It is certainly possible, but evidence of that cannot be found simply by looking at what is in the book itself. You can't say that the literary forms in the BoM are evidence that he knew those forms, or that KJV passages are evidence that he was looking those passages. That assumes this influence where it ought to be demonstrated.

What do you mean by "knew those forms"? Please clarify.

 

As for what I do and don't assume about translation, you are making assumptions bout my assumptions, which are incorrect. I have some limited translation experience (with Latin), and it is that experience combined with my own reading of  Royal Skousen, Stephen Ricks, Brant Gardner, and Ostler, along with some of my own reading of the eye-witness statements that informs my views on the matter. Those views are nothing like what you have characterized.

Then perhaps you can clarify. Your previous post suggested that acknowledging similar literary forms, devices, and content between the two books would somehow be problematic. I was trying to figure out why you would say that. I'm still unclear.

 

 

I don't find the content and themes all that similar, but to each his own. Nonetheless, in the discussion in which I was engaged with cognitiveharmony, I did not get the impression that it was about much more than language.

Just out of curiosity, did you read the Hunt book?

[David T]

So why the big deal with the Spaulding manuscript?

 

If I'm not mistaken, such theories were more focused on an (incredibly loose and high level) parallel contemporary story in Manuscript Found itself, IE, foreigners show up in the Americas and develop civilzations, than on close parallel language. With the thought that the Book of Mormon must be a more developed and re-written and expanded version of a lost hypothetical manuscript written following the existing Manuscript Found. IE, it's based on the existence of a hypothetical middle-man document that further develops the story.

 

IE, the suggestion of existence of a 'rough draft work in progress', with purported connections with Rigdon.

Edited October 22, 2013 by David T

[mfbukowski]

Some thoughts before I forget them:

I don't see the need for the exulting I see on one side and the defensiveness I perceive on the other. Whether or not you believe the Book of Mormon is revealed scripture, the Hunt text could potentially give us much more insight into how the Book of Mormon came about. If I were a believer, I'd want to understand how God's word was transmitted in such a way as to make sense to an American populace at that time; I wouldn't be getting defensive because the book possibly challenges my assumptions about how the BofM came about. Likewise, as a heretic, I'm interested in this topic because it may help me understand why the Book of Mormon looks the way it does; I will not be one of those jumping for joy because the Book of Mormon has been "disproven," as if that were possible.

Dangit.

 

You tricked me into giving a heretic a rep point. 

[jkwilliams]

Dangit.

 

You tricked me into giving a heretic a rep point. 

Well, I'll take it, as I was expecting something a little saltier than "heretic." I don't think we're so different, you and I, scary as that may seem.

[mfbukowski]

No, I understand the terms, I've read much of the discussion on the matter, from Blake Ostler, to Royal Skousen, to Brant Gardner. I'm telling you that style of speech used does not necessarily influence "tightness" or "looseness" of the translation. It doesn't matter to me what others have said on the matter, because I have my own experience translating to inform my view. Things can be translated tightly or loosely into KJV English, tightly or loosely into 19th c. English, or tightly or loosely into modern English. Heck, a passage could even be translated tightly or loosely into a mix of all three of these styles.

It's all in the eye of the beholder.

I thought this was fascinating, kind of in the way a trainwreck is.   It just shows the extremes one can get into worrying about translations and who made them for what purpose.

 

Kind of funny and sad at the same time.

 

This book is the result of an exhaustive six year collation of new bible versions, their underlying Greek manuscripts, editions, and editors. It objectively and methodically documents the hidden alliance between new versions and the New Age Movement's One World Religion. The emerging 'new' Christianity - with its substitution of riches for righteousness, a crown for a cross, and an imitation for a new creation - is shown to be a direct result of the wording in new versions. Documented are the thousands of words, verses, and doctrines by which new versions will prepare the apostate churches of these last days to accept the religion of the Antichrist - even his mark, image, and Lucifer worship. The Greek manuscripts, critical editions, lexicons and dictionaries behind the new versions are examined, revealing their occult origins, contents, and yet unreleased material - a blueprint for the Antichrist's One World Religion and government. Presented also is the latest research proving the Authorized King James Version represents not only Christianity's earliest and most widely used Greek text, but is the easiest version to read according to computer analysis based formulas from the Flesch-Kincaid research firm. Each page opens a door exposing new version editors - in agreement with Luciferians, occultists, and New Age philosophy - in mental institutions, seance parlors, prison cells, and court rooms for heresy trials - and most shocking of all - denying that salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ. Five have lost their ability to speak.

http://www.amazon.com/New-Age-Bible-Versions-Documentation/dp/0963584502

[cognitiveharmony]

Nope. Circular reasoning occurs when you begin with the assumption you are trying to prove. To take the literary forms in the Book of Mormon as evidence that Joseph Smith knew those forms is to assume that he wrote the book, rather than translated it. But whether he wrote it or translated it is exactly what is in dispute when the "apologist" you speak of insists that there is no evidence Joseph Smith did know these forms, and thus you need evidence that comes from outside the Book of Mormon. Ditto on the possession of the KJV Bible during the period of translation. The text of the Book of Mormon cannot be accepted as evidence of what Joseph did or didn't know without assuming he is the author.

 

 

No, I understand the terms, I've read much of the discussion on the matter, from Blake Ostler, to Royal Skousen, to Brant Gardner. I'm telling you that style of speech used does not necessarily influence "tightness" or "looseness" of the translation. It doesn't matter to me what others have said on the matter, because I have my own experience translating to inform my view. Things can be translated tightly or loosely into KJV English, tightly or loosely into 19th c. English, or tightly or loosely into modern English. Heck, a passage could even be translated tightly or loosely into a mix of all three of these styles.

 

If I am NOT to rule out the supernatural involvement in ANYTHING that I would like to deduce logically, then I could in fact deduce NOTHING logically. Are you seriously arguing this point? The ONLY thing that makes the statement "joseph smith wrote or dictated the BOM" an assumption is his supernatural inspiration claims. He did in fact "write or dictate the BOM" and openly claims to have done so. With this line of reasoning EVERY logical argument that could ever be put forth would be an assumption because God could have been involved in the process which would supercede all laws of time, space and physics and is therefore circular. You can't have this both ways. 

 

Regarding your translation comments, you are not considering the anachronistic implications of the translation nor the revelatory factor. A tight translation doesn't indicate necessarily how close to the original language that you were able to get or how well you were able to convey the idea, at least not in the material that I've read. A tight translation would be considered God giving the translation word for word and God Himself being responsible for that translation. A loose translation would be God giving him the jist of the idea and Joseph working it out on his own using his surroundings to help him do so. Again, I say this text almost forces that theory.

[mfbukowski]

It is refreshing to hear someone say that the historical claims don't matter. If I were still trying to believe, that might work for me.

I also would not care if, say, Rorty was a drunkard (he wasn't- to my knowledge, though he looks like he knocked back a few once in a while!).

 

What is important is the spiritual content, nothing more or less.  The historicity of the resurrection cannot be proven either, yet billions believe in that.  Spiritual truths have nothing to do with what is objectively provable.

[jkwilliams]

I also would not care if, say, Rorty was a drunkard (he wasn't- to my knowledge, though he looks like he knocked back a few once in a while!).

 

What is important is the spiritual content, nothing more or less.  The historicity of the resurrection cannot be proven either, yet billions believe in that.  Spiritual truths have nothing to do with what is objectively provable.

That kind of makes apologetics irrelevant. Just out of curiosity, do you think that reason, logic, and evidence have anything to say about specific historical claims, regardless of their source?

[mfbukowski]

Well, I'll take it, as I was expecting something a little saltier than "heretic." I don't think we're so different, you and I, scary as that may seem.

Who gets to be the evil twin? 

[jkwilliams]

Who gets to be the evil twin? 

It's not me. You're the lawyer, after all.

[cognitiveharmony]

Well I would say you are missing the forest for the trees but really I think you are too busy focusing on the texture of the bark of one tree and not even seeing the other trees which make up just one stand of trees in the forest.

 

The entire point is that Joseph was a 19th century man who was made up of 19th century vocabularies.  He WAS the 19th century personified.

 

Richard Rorty has written many books about how what we are and what we think is contingent upon the vocabularies within which we have been enculturated.  There is literally nothing more which can be said- that is, using words in vocabularies- than what is in your personal cultural vocabulary.

 

You think in your vocabulary, you perceive the world based on your vocabulary, you cannot escape your vocabulary.

 

The 19th century was based on Romanticism, about which Isaiah Berlin said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism

This movement was really the seed which leads to the idea that one must find out spiritual matters for oneself, and that art is the creator of reality and that means that mankind is the creator of reality as mankind sees it.

 

I see this reflected in the Mormon notion that God is a Man, and we are gods in embryo.  The whole notion later is carried into American Pragmatism especially in William James and later into guys like Dewey and Rorty and the whole "post-modern" movement.  The old transcendent god is dead, and replaced by a new Human God.

 

I think I am saying explicitly what is implied in Ostler's treatment of "translation".  The Book of Mormon cannot be SHOWN to be a "translation" in any sense- and never will be- until and unless we get the "original manuscript".

 

It is not provable by scientific means, it is not disprovable by scientific means, and any attempt to do so misses the whole point.

 

Seeing it as a "translation" is possible only with the eyes of faith- based on personal testimony- WHICH INDEED IS THE CENTRAL CLAIM OF THE BOOK.

 

The book really IS a revelation.  What was happening in Joseph's mind is only known to Joseph.  He could have imagined that he was "translating" if you want to see it that way- but seeing that way is not my choice.  Yet seeing it that way is not inconsistent with the gospel.

 

I personally know that I have had experiences- the type of which William James and Rorty and Dewey find to be "rational"- which have changed my life through understanding the PRINCIPLES taught in the Book of Mormon.

 

Quite honestly, that's all I care about.

There are many here who understand this as I do, and I think among church members generally this position is common though they might not articulate it the way I do.  They may say "I don't care what the critics say, I have a testimony and that is all that matters".  To me that is saying about the same thing I am, though our understandings of that may differ due to my cursed philosophical training

 

Yet other critics were taught things as a child which they later found to be false, because their understanding of religious matters did not grow up.

 

When you are a child you think as a child, in a very literalistic manner.  Santa Claus is real.

 

But as an adult, you don't publish papers on the falsity of Santa Claus.   Yet some in effect, do just that, and that is how I see this study.

 

There is no wisdom in textual analysis.  You cannot learn the purpose of life from studying the frequency words are used.  You don't learn anything from metaphors by counting their syllables.

 

"But the church teaches thus and so"

 

Of course the church teaches thus and so, and should teach to the lowest level of understanding humans can have.

 

But the church does not also restrict you from progressing in understanding, in fact the church encourages it.

Well, I'm not sure which forest you're talking about or which tree I'm staring at although if I have something pertinent to say about a tree or a piece of bark on that tree, I'll probably concentrate on that one piece of bark to better understand it and convey my personal opinion regarding it but that doesn't mean I can't see the forest also. But I digress...I think you're actually agreeing with me here in the first part of your response.

 

I really don't have anything to say about the second half of your response other than that these spiritual experiences come in all religions and walks of life very similarly relating to a person's culture and beliefs. With that being said I have no reason to doubt your own perception of your experiences and I'm glad that they make you happy.

[canadaduane]

So did you do comparisons with translated texts and religious texts as well as just texts in general? And if not, do you plan to and if not, why not?

 

 

We did a comparison of texts in general, but because the KJV influences so many texts at this time, we removed ngrams from our analysis that are contained in the KJV (we also removed the Douay-Rheims bible ngrams). So this text, The Late War, is our top match because it is closest to the Book of Mormon, *excluding* direct KJV phrases. Also, the matches are exact matches only--we don't do any synonym matching or levenshtein distance matching for example.

 

 

The third kind, something that we are all familiar with, is the "translated by the power of God" kind, and I can't say I have a clear idea of what that entails.

Do you see this as problematic or something that can just be ignored?

 

I think it's problematic for people who are seeking truth--the more well-specified the language around a question, the more probing and accurate an answer can be. For anyone asking, "Was the Book of Mormon translated by the power of God?"--without a clear understanding of what, exactly, "translated by the power of God" entails, you can only hope to get an answer as precise (or imprecise) as the question. Another way of stating this is that if you don't pin down what the question means, its meaning can easily be varied after the fact once a proposed answer seems to fit.

[Duncan]

We did a comparison of texts in general, but because the KJV influences so many texts at this time, we removed ngrams from our analysis that are contained in the KJV (we also removed the Douay-Rheims bible ngrams). So this text, The Late War, is our top match because it is closest to the Book of Mormon, *excluding* direct KJV phrases. Also, the matches are exact matches only--we don't do any synonym matching or levenshtein distance matching for example.

 

 

I think it's problematic for people who are seeking truth--the more well-specified the language around a question, the more probing and accurate an answer can be. For anyone asking, "Was the Book of Mormon translated by the power of God?"--without a clear understanding of what, exactly, "translated by the power of God" entails, you can only hope to get an answer as precise (or imprecise) as the question. Another way of stating this is that if you don't pin down what the question means, its meaning can easily be varied after the fact once a proposed answer seems to fit.

 

 

you're a Canadian who's heard of the Book of Mormon? ColoUr me impressed!

[jkwilliams]

you're a Canadian who's heard of the Book of Mormon? ColoUr me impressed!

There aren't any Mormons in Canada? Who knew?

[Calm]

We did a comparison of texts in general, but because the KJV influences so many texts at this time, we removed ngrams from our analysis that are contained in the KJV (we also removed the Douay-Rheims bible ngrams). So this text, The Late War, is our top match because it is closest to the Book of Mormon, *excluding* direct KJV phrases. Also, the matches are exact matches only--we don't do any synonym matching or levenshtein distance matching for example.

I would like to see how someone well versed in textual criticism or whatever field this study falls into responds to this.

[mfbukowski]

That kind of makes apologetics irrelevant. Just out of curiosity, do you think that reason, logic, and evidence have anything to say about specific historical claims, regardless of their source?

"There are no facts, only interpretations"- Nietzsche

 

Reason logic and evidence have everything to do with historical claims, but nothing to do with religious belief.

 

You really only need to listen to the first 45 minutes or so of this- the rest are questions and answers.  Short story: Religion and science are compatible because they are talking about different things.  Science talks about observations which are replicable, religion talks about what gives your life meaning.

 

People don't die for a scientific theory, but they do die for things and people and ideas they love.  What you die for is not based on reason, it is based on what you think is important in life.  Science tells us nothing about what is important.  Or one could say that science is unimportant if one wanted to.

 

Incidentally, Rorty was himself an atheist, and here he argues for the "rationality" of religion.  He just needed some spiritual experiences.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjhVk-0Vhmk

[canadaduane]

you're a Canadian who's heard of the Book of Mormon? ColoUr me impressed!

Do you prefer red, yellow, or blue pencil crayons?