Book Of Mormon: New Evidence Of 19Th Century Origin

[nealr]

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

 

 

OK, let's back up. cognitiveharmony said the following (bolding mine):

 

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.

 

 

It seems to me that CH is referring to the literary forms in the Bible, more specifically that one's Ostler talks about as being evidence of the ancient origins of the BoM. (Since that is the context to which CH's original remarks belong.) Those are the same forms to which I refer, and I have been responding to CH. My point is that the presence of these forms in the Book of Mormon cannot be used as evidence that he knew them unless we assume that Joseph Smith is the author.

 

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.

 

 

Since I was not talking about similar literary forms, devices, or content, between the two texts, I'm not at all clear how you got that. All I've ever been saying on the matter is that the assumption that literary forms in the Book of Mormon text are evidence of the kinds of literary forms Joseph Smith was aware of requires the assumption that Joseph Smith composed the Book of Mormon. If he is not the author, than it is unnecessary for him to have known anything about the literary forms that show through his translation, just like I am generally clueless about such forms in Latin unless my textbook points them out to me. Nonetheless, those forms often show through in my translations.

 

As for my views on translation, the short version is that I him very much as an inexperienced translator (since this is his first translation), like myself (only my second semester in Latin). As such, I imagine he struggled through the translation first having a rough idea of what the sentence or phrase was staying and than having to word it in coherent English. Like me, sometimes he is more successful at smoothing his translations out than others. The end result certainly has some of his influence on it, but not to the degree of "expansion" that Ostler sees. Some parts are probably tighter while others are probably looser (again, like my own translations of Latin), but knowing which parts are which is clearly a very complicated task. Ultimately, I think it is safe to say that my views would fall somewhere in between Ricks and Gardner on the matter.

 

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

 

 

I read about as much as I had the patience for, which I confess was not much. In my defense, however, I am studying for a mid-term, trying to write a paper, and reading a book that I have to write an essay on in less than two weeks (with other homework to be done in the inbetween time). As it is, I'm spending way more time in all this than I should. Perhaps when school gives me some time, I'll have a longer look. But, I presume that the people crowing the loudest elsewhere on the internet are also posting the most striking of thematic parallels, things like "stripling warrior" and the number 2000 being close together, or "curious workmanship" with boats, weapons, and balls, etc. As I have read them, none of them have been impressive, and as I've seen them dissected by others they seem even more strained. Perhaps you can provide something more provoking than these?

[mfbukowski]

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

You guys kind of look alike even. 

 

You need to get out in the sun occasionally.  Oh yeah- I forgot there isn't any up there.

Edited October 22, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

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

[jkwilliams]

"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.

Sure, but some religions do talk about observations which are replicable, hence the problem. For most Mormons, for example, there's a problem if there were no actual Nephites.

 

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.

Except when you're driving, you kind of rely on science to tell you that ramming head-on into oncoming traffic isn't a good idea. And some people have died for scientific theories, such as Galileo. Ideas you love can be based on reason and science.

 

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

I'd be right there with you, but I'm not going to reject spiritual experiences I have had to go back to a religion in which I was miserable. Just saying.

[Duncan]

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

 

 

there are about as many as there are people in England who believe that Jedi is a real religion, according to my 10 yr old! haha!

Edited October 22, 2013 by Duncan

[Duncan]

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

 

blue will do!

[mfbukowski]

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.

The data is the data.

 

What I am disputing is if it has any importance- I don't see that it does.  To me, it is much ado about nothing.

[jkwilliams]

there are about as many as there are people in England who believe that Jedi is a real religion, according to my 10 yr old! haha!

Are you suggesting that belief in Mormonism is similar to belief in Jedi-ism?  

[mfbukowski]

Sure, but some religions do talk about observations which are replicable, hence the problem. For most Mormons, for example, there's a problem if there were no actual Nephites.

 

No, not a single religion is based on science.  Period.

 

There's also a problem if there was no resurrection.   Surprise surprise- you can't prove either one- and both "facts" are irrelevant PRECISELY FOR THAT REASON.  There is a reason these are called "faiths".

 

Do you think that educated Hindus actually believe that Ganesh is a boy with the head of an elephant?  Do you think there might be something there you are missing about believers in Hinduism?

 

Again, John for me this is a huge disconnect- your interest in postmodernism and your belief that religion is based on observable phenomena

[mfbukowski]

Are you suggesting that belief in Mormonism is similar to belief in Jedi-ism?  

HHAAHAHAHAHAHA

We had our laugh at the stupid Mormons, now the answer:

Yes.

You are missing the point

 

Faith is about what is NOT seen.  Read your bible for that one.  That is the similarity, and where the similarity ends.

Edited October 22, 2013 by mfbukowski

[cognitiveharmony]

The data is the data.

 

What I am disputing is if it has any importance- I don't see that it does.  To me, it is much ado about nothing.

 

For many this is probably the case. I wouldn't argue that.

[jkwilliams]

No, not a single religion is based on science.  Period.

 

There's also a problem if there was no resurrection.   Surprise surprise- you can't prove either one- and both "facts" are irrelevant PRECISELY FOR THAT REASON.  There is a reason these are called "faiths".

 

Do you think that educated Hindus actually believe that Ganesh is a boy with the head of an elephant?  Do you think there might be something there you are missing about believers in Hinduism?

 

Again, John for me this is a huge disconnect- your interest in postmodernism and your belief that religion is based on observable phenomena

I did not say that "religion is based on observable phenomena." Never have, never will. What I am saying is that some religions make certain claims that are based on observable phenomena, and it's perfectly reasonable to test those claims against the evidence. For example, it's rather easy to look at the archaeological record and conclude that Nephites likely did not exist. Does that matter? Obviously not to you, but it does to a lot of Mormons I know.

You may not accept this, but my reasons for leaving the church were not based on observable phenomena but were matters of conscience and answers to prayer.

[jkwilliams]

HHAAHAHAHAHAHA

We had our laugh at the stupid Mormons, now the answer:

Yes.

You are missing the point

 

Faith is about what is NOT seen.  Read your bible for that one.  That is the similarity, and where the similarity ends.

Jeez, I make a silly joke (not at stupid Mormons, btw). Tough crowd indeed.

[Duncan]

Are you suggesting that belief in Mormonism is similar to belief in Jedi-ism?  

 

 

Canadians are different or whatever so possibly in some parts! in WW1 there was a Canadian regiment that wore kilts and the Germans called them "The Ladies from Hell" so we adopt whatever fashion styles from wherever and go to war wearing it!

[jkwilliams]

Canadians are different or whatever so possibly in some parts! in WW1 there was a Canadian regiment that wore kilts and the Germans called them "The Ladies from Hell" so we adopt whatever fashion styles from wherever and go to war wearing it!

Some of my best friends are Canadian.

[nealr]

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. 

 

 

Joseph Smith openly claimed to translating by the gift and power of God. You must assume that is not true. If your a priori position is that such things simply can't happen, well then fine, but then I'm not sure why you are even arguing with any "apologists," since such conversations where the a priori  assumptions are so obviously different are bound to forever go nowhere. 

 

The rest of your comment is just plain nonsense. No one is insisting that the supernatural be invoked at every turn, but since the Book of Mormon was claimed to be and is presented as a translation, you can't make arguments against that possibility which presume that it is not. That is, and always will be, circular reasoning. 

 

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.

 

 

Actually, I have considered both "anachronistic implications" and "revelatory factors" as I have worked through my own views on the translation. What's more, nothing I have said has been about those, because what you said was not about those. I strictly responding as to whether this new text eliminates the possibility of a tight translation. It does not. Other factors, such as anachronisms and revelation, are irrelevant as to whether this single factor does what you say it does.

 

Beyond that, you are conflating tight control with tight translation. Skousen does this same thing, and Gardner points this out in his book. Tight control deals the transmission of the text. Tight translation deals with the relationship of the translated text to the original text. A text can be tightly controlled but not tightly translated, and can just as well be loosely controlled, but not loosely translated. There is clearly evidence of tight control in the transmission process from seer stone to written page, but tight translation is less clear. Even still, though, the question must be raised about who is exerting control? Is it God who exerts this tight control, or is it Joseph Smith? And, if it is God, need we assume that such tight control of transmission entails that he is the source of the translation?

 

Other comments above should make it clear that I do not ascribe to a view that God gave Joseph Smith a word-for-word translation of the text. Still, though, I disagree that, as you say, "this text almost forces" the view that God did not give the translation word-for-word. And if this has nothing to do with, "how close to the original language" the translation was, again as you say, then you have already defeated your own argument, if you ask me. Is God not allowed to reveal a loose translation? Can his translation not employ common terms of the day like "curious workmanship" or "stripling warrior"?

 

This certainly may tell us somethings about the translation of the Book of Mormon, why it is in the style it is, why it uses the terms it uses, etc. But it cannot, to my mind, at least not by itself, tell us whether or not it is a translation, whether it is a tight or loose translation, or whether the translation was given to Joseph Smith word-for-word or as impressions. There is a host of different evidences that must be weighed together to reach those kinds of conclusions, and no single item forces one thing or the other. Not even this.

[nealr]

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.

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

 

Think me a trainwreck, if you will, but I am not particularly training to any "extremes" worrying about translation. My views on the translation are probably much more complicated than you are beginning to think (I don't not subscribe to a tight translation theory, or at least not a strictly tight translation). But I disagree with CH about what the implications of this "new source" are, and I will go to extremes to try and articulate my point, especially if I think I am being misunderstood.

 

In terms of my point on translation being in the "eye of the beholder," perhaps a simple example will do to illustrate my point. Take the following Latin sentence:

 

“Animōs virtūtemque hōrum iuvenum laudō!”

 

I would translate that like this: 

 

“I praise the courage and character of these young men!"

 

This is fairly literal translation, though animōs is being translated in a figurative way, based on context and common Roman usage. A literal translation of it would be "spirits" or "minds", but it is usually used to mean "courage" or "pride" in the plural (the plural being for used for emphasis, not number, in such cases). Now I could render this passage like this,

 

"I praiseth the courage and virtue of these striplings."

 

Now I have made the passage more "scriptural sounding," somewhat KJV-esque, but the translation is equally literal. Virtūtem is equally accurate as character or virtue. Virtue is in the KJV, however, and character is not. Iuvenum is literally "young men", and that is the actual meaning of striplings, so it is just as literal as the previous translation. If I were to continue to translate hundreds of pages of Latin in this style, I would no doubt end up with plenty of 4-word (or more) phrases right out of the KJV showing up in my translations. 

 

To me, to insist that a certain style demands that a translation be loose is basically to say that all native speakers of that style could only have loose translations of a text. It is like saying no English translation in the 16th-17th centuries could have been literal, which strikes me as absurd. 

 

Now I am not saying the translation of the Book of Mormon is strictly literal, or tight. I am saying that the style and vernacular employed has little to no bearing on that issue.

[canadaduane]

I don't think this parallel has been mentioned here, but my brother, Chris, mentioned this one in his presentation:

TLWB 28:12 “they cut down the tall trees of the forest, and hewed them, and built many more strong vessels… and they put windows in them, and they pitched them within and without with pitch; after the fashion of the ark”

Ether 2:17 “And they were built... tight like unto a dish; and the length thereof was the length of a tree;”
Ether 2:23 “your vessels ... cannot have windows”
Ether 6:7 “their vessels being tight like unto a dish, and also they were tight like unto the ark of Noah”

I know some people believe that a window can refer to the wooden shutter of a window, and that's fine. But if you think windows that can be dashed to pieces is an anachronism, I think the wording sheds interesting light on the Lord mentioning windows in this context.

[mfbukowski]

I did not say that "religion is based on observable phenomena." Never have, never will. What I am saying is that some religions make certain claims that are based on observable phenomena, and it's perfectly reasonable to test those claims against the evidence.

I don't know what to say.

 

I will just let that stand on it's own.

[jkwilliams]

I don't know what to say.

Ah, so we've reached the unspeakable.

 

I will just let that stand on it's own.

I do think it's reasonable to look at evidence of specific claims. What people do with that is another matter.

[Calm]

I think the wording sheds interesting light on the Lord mentioning windows in this context.

You've lost me.

[mfbukowski]

Think me a trainwreck, if you will, but I am not particularly training to any "extremes" worrying about translation. My views on the translation are probably much more complicated than you are beginning to think (I don't not subscribe to a tight translation theory, or at least not a strictly tight translation). But I disagree with CH about what the implications of this "new source" are, and I will go to extremes to try and articulate my point, especially if I think I am being misunderstood.

 

In terms of my point on translation being in the "eye of the beholder," perhaps a simple example will do to illustrate my point. Take the following Latin sentence:

 

“Animōs virtūtemque hōrum iuvenum laudō!”

 

I would translate that like this: 

 

“I praise the courage and character of these young men!"

 

This is fairly literal translation, though animōs is being translated in a figurative way, based on context and common Roman usage. A literal translation of it would be "spirits" or "minds", but it is usually used to mean "courage" or "pride" in the plural (the plural being for used for emphasis, not number, in such cases). Now I could render this passage like this,

 

"I praiseth the courage and virtue of these striplings."

 

Now I have made the passage more "scriptural sounding," somewhat KJV-esque, but the translation is equally literal. Virtūtem is equally accurate as character or virtue. Virtue is in the KJV, however, and character is not. Iuvenum is literally "young men", and that is the actual meaning of striplings, so it is just as literal as the previous translation. If I were to continue to translate hundreds of pages of Latin in this style, I would no doubt end up with plenty of 4-word (or more) phrases right out of the KJV showing up in my translations. 

 

To me, to insist that a certain style demands that a translation be loose is basically to say that all native speakers of that style could only have loose translations of a text. It is like saying no English translation in the 16th-17th centuries could have been literal, which strikes me as absurd. 

 

Now I am not saying the translation of the Book of Mormon is strictly literal, or tight. I am saying that the style and vernacular employed has little to no bearing on that issue.

For what it's worth, I agree with you, I understand your point perfectly and it is an excellent example.

[mfbukowski]

You've lost me.

Likewise.

 

I think the point was that both mentioned windows in the ark, which was made of wood and the windows sealed with pitch.

 

Of course no one will tell us why these facts are important.

 

I think the logic is supposed to go:

 

There are parallels between the BOM and these other books (one in particular)

Therefore

Joseph Smith did not translate the BOM, and hence was a fraud, not a prophet, and Mormonism has no value.

 

But of course no one will say that- it's all innuendo.

 

If that's the message, I would say that it makes a few jumps in logic, and that is THE reason it is not being said.

 

It might be nice if someone would come out and say what they mean, so it could be analyzed and a case made or rejected, but as it is, it is much ado about nothing. 

Edited October 22, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

HHAAHAHAHAHAHA

We had our laugh at the stupid Mormons, now the answer:

Yes.

You are missing the point

Faith is about what is NOT seen. Read your bible for that one. That is the similarity, and where the similarity ends.

Exactly, WHY the need to show the BoM is historical, especially when faith is so important?

JS even said at one time he didn't want to tell people what to believe. I wish I had the quote. Through the years, it seems our religion has been corralled into one perfect system, but hopefully the ability to believe what we want is still there. With our hearts and not our heads.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Tacenda

[canadaduane]

You've lost me.

 

Hypothetically, if the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work, then it's interesting to think about why the Lord is portrayed here as explaining to the Brother of Jared that windows won't work in the vessels, since the Brother of Jared would likely never have heard of (glass) windows in 2200 BC. If The Late War is a text which heavily influences the wording, style, themes, and content of the Book of Mormon, then the passage in Ether could almost be seen as a response to the ship-building technology of the early 19th century.

 

Again, in this hypothetical world, if Joseph read this passage from The Late War, he could have read that ships have windows, but if it didn't fit the narrative he'd intended then he could have used the character of the Lord to specify that windows would be forbidden.