Does The Seer Stone Cause Problems For Other Bom Apologetics?

[Brant Gardner]

Hi, Brant, it's nice to see you around. The mention of flocks and herds of animals used for food or transportation is problematic, as that doesn't quite match anything we see in the Americas, but the "battle beasts" explanation doesn't really work, and you seem to agree. Who knows? Every theory for the Nephites has some big problems, and at this point, it seems like picking the one with the fewest. 

 

Again, it's good to see you,

 

John

Good to see you again as well. Of course I disagree that we have to pick the least problematic explanation. Of course I also admit that there are steps off the path toward the best explanations--I've made several. However, what works works so much more often and better than what doesn't that I am quite optimistic that we'll come to even better explanations. 

 

Flocks are herds always appear to be in the context of food, and I would certainly disagree that there were no Mesoamerican practices of keeping animals nearby. The New World doesn't have the kind of naturally herding animals that the Old World did, and certainly not the thousands of years of domestication to give them them the traits we currently expect. However, keeping various fowl and deer was hardly uncommon.

[Rivers]

This thread was a lot more fun when we could just make fun of someone bringing up the "Adieu" argument...  Can we go back to that?

What I find funny is that Richard Dawkins likes to bring up the 17th century english argument.  And that argument is just as silly as the "Adieu" thing IMO.

[Rivers]

What about the requried sacrifices of the Law of Moses?  How did that work out in a world with different animals?

 

Edited August 15, 2015 by Rivers

[jkwilliams]

Good to see you again as well. Of course I disagree that we have to pick the least problematic explanation. Of course I also admit that there are steps off the path toward the best explanations--I've made several. However, what works works so much more often and better than what doesn't that I am quite optimistic that we'll come to even better explanations. 

 

Flocks are herds always appear to be in the context of food, and I would certainly disagree that there were no Mesoamerican practices of keeping animals nearby. The New World doesn't have the kind of naturally herding animals that the Old World did, and certainly not the thousands of years of domestication to give them them the traits we currently expect. However, keeping various fowl and deer was hardly uncommon.

 

Yes, I know that. I'm just saying the description of moving and watering herds and flocks is not a great match.

[sunstoned]

Yes, I know that. I'm just saying the description of moving and watering herds and flocks is not a great match.

I agree.  These verses are really very clear and straightforward.  The servant Ammon was feeding the king's horses.  Later it says that Ammon was “preparing” King Lamoni’s “horses and chariots” to conduct him to the land of Nephi (Alma 18:9-12).  A plain reading raises no uncertainty on what the author was trying to convey.  All the weirdness happens when apologists of the old FARMS feel they have to explain away supposed anachronisms.  These explanations are quite frankly silly and embarrassing, and they really convince no one except maybe the most desperate. 

[Brant Gardner]

I agree.  These verses are really very clear and straightforward.  The servant Ammon was feeding the king's horses.  Later it says that Ammon was “preparing” King Lamoni’s “horses and chariots” to conduct him to the land of Nephi (Alma 18:9-12).  A plain reading raises no uncertainty on what the author was trying to convey.  All the weirdness happens when apologists of the old FARMS feel they have to explain away supposed anachronisms.  These explanations are quite frankly silly and embarrassing, and they really convince no one except maybe the most desperate. 

Well, I suppose I should feel embarrassed. But I don't. If the original language of the Book of Mormon were claimed to be English, then horses and chariots would be fatal issues. Of course, the very idea that a text anywhere in the world would be in English during that time period would also be fatal.

 

Since the text declares that it is a translation, any criticism of language that forgets issues of translation really should be even more embarrassing that an attempt to use translation theory to explain the English text.

[cinepro]

Well, I suppose I should feel embarrassed. But I don't. If the original language of the Book of Mormon were claimed to be English, then horses and chariots would be fatal issues. Of course, the very idea that a text anywhere in the world would be in English during that time period would also be fatal.

 

Since the text declares that it is a translation, any criticism of language that forgets issues of translation really should be even more embarrassing that an attempt to use translation theory to explain the English text.

 

But it is also a mistake to try and explain anachronisms in the text using conventional "translation theory".  Certainly, the body of experience learned throughout the ages regarding translations from one language to another is interesting, but the Book of Mormon is totally unique in one important regard:  it is claimed that the conversion from the original text to English was performed by a supernatural (and presumably infallible?) being.

 

You can bring in as many other assumptions as are needed, including Joseph's presumed inability to reliably convey the text being delivered by the supernatural being, or the theory that the divine being doing the translation had an imperfect knowledge of reformed Egyptian and/or English. 

 

But that isn't an error of translation.  That's an ad-hoc assumption added to a totally new theory of "Divine Translation."  And it's also contradicted by the tight translation theory, which theory is strongly attested to by those who were around during the translation process, as well as the presence of every unique pronoun in the book.  There is no "loose" way to translate the name "Coriantumr".

[Brant Gardner]

But it is also a mistake to try and explain anachronisms in the text using conventional "translation theory".  Certainly, the body of experience learned throughout the ages regarding translations from one language to another is interesting, but the Book of Mormon is totally unique in one important regard:  it is claimed that the conversion from the original text to English was performed by a supernatural (and presumably infallible?) being.

 

You can bring in as many other assumptions as are needed, including Joseph's presumed inability to reliably convey the text being delivered by the supernatural being, or the theory that the divine being doing the translation had an imperfect knowledge of reformed Egyptian and/or English. 

 

But that isn't an error of translation.  That's an ad-hoc assumption added to a totally new theory of "Divine Translation."  And it's also contradicted by the tight translation theory, which theory is strongly attested to by those who were around during the translation process, as well as the presence of every unique pronoun in the book.  There is no "loose" way to translate the name "Coriantumr".

Ah, but that is precisely the problem. The assumption that because it was a divine translation it is therefore accurate is no more than an assumption unless there are data to back up the assumption. Any discussion of the text as translation that declares the answer without attempting to understand the evidence simply declares some assumption as normative. The next problem is simplifying the evidence by selecting a single example that supports one method without analyzing all of the evidence. What appears to happen is that there are different types of translation that can be discerned from the data. One of them is a literalist translation of names. That has some pretty good evidence behind it. However, it doesn't explain the rest of the text, and by itself doesn't explain all names (for example why do we have "horse" as well as "curelom"?).

 

The nature of the relationship between the original language, the divine influence, and Joseph Smith is an important one, and too often it is "decided" by what we think it should have been rather than what the data indicate.

[omni]

My point is tha it seems the use of the seer stone without the plates present is not a translation but rather pure revelation and even divine dictation. Thus there would be no reason for such meaning as in your example above.

Yes, I realize that and agree with you. My point was trying to show the illogical nature of the common apologetic claim that the word "horse" was used for "tapir" or even "deer".

[carbon dioxide]

Yes, I realize that and agree with you. My point was trying to show the illogical nature of the common apologetic claim that the word "horse" was used for "tapir" or even "deer".

Unless the Nephites themselves classified and referred to a tapir or deer as a type of horse. 

[omni]

Unless the Nephites themselves classified and referred to a tapir or deer as a type of horse.

We should remember that a divine being or power was providing the translation, not some linguist or anthropologist who may not of realized the exact same word was used to describe two completely different animals. So why is this divine being/power not smart enough to provide the intended meaning rather than the literal translation?

[Robert F. Smith]

Does The Seer Stone Cause Problems For Other Bom Apologetics?

 

Not really, unless the apologists in question don't actually know something about the use of this or that smartphone app in translations. God presumably uses very advanced electronics when He deems it necessary or convenient.  Does that answer your question, Teancum?

[Teancum]

Does The Seer Stone Cause Problems For Other Bom Apologetics?

 

Not really, unless the apologists in question don't actually know something about the use of this or that smartphone app in translations. God presumably uses very advanced electronics when He deems it necessary or convenient.  Does that answer your question, Teancum?

Well not for me personally. But it seems whether it was the Urim and Thumim or a seer stone it does not matter. Both would be along the lines of divine dictation and not typical translations. Thus I think the apologetic argument tha Joseph put words into what was familiar to him in his language absolutely falls apart.

[Robert F. Smith]

We should remember that a divine being or power was providing the translation, not some linguist or anthropologist who may not of realized the exact same word was used to describe two completely different animals. So why is this divine being/power not smart enough to provide the intended meaning rather than the literal translation?

II Nephi 31:3, D&C 1:24

 

God is smart enough to speak in any way He pleases.  However, humans are so ignorant and foolish that He has to speak to them in their weakness, in accordance with their limited understanding.

[Robert F. Smith]

Well not for me personally. But it seems whether it was the Urim and Thumim or a seer stone it does not matter. Both would be along the lines of divine dictation and not typical translations. Thus I think the apologetic argument tha Joseph put words into what was familiar to him in his language absolutely falls apart.

There are those who adhere to the plenary dictation theory, in which Joseph is reduced to a mere talking dog act, while others suggest that Joseph's mind was fully engaged and stimulated by the Holy Spirit (in the way in which the early Christians experienced glossolalia on Pentecost) through a kind of feedback loop via the brain.  The latter is supported by Oliver Cowdery's experience in which he thought he only had to read the words on the stone (just like reading a teleprompter), and was taught that his mind was directly involved (D&C 9: 8 ).   Still others, following Royal Skousen, maintain that the Book of Mormon was translated circa 1511 by someone in England, and delivered already completed to Joseph in 1828-1829 -- hot off the stone, although the interpreters had also been used at first.   Your first step ought to be to examine the theories and decide which is the best fit with the evidence.  Then and only then can we profitably wrangle over your idea.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[HappyJackWagon]

Has anyone addressed the issue of Moroni's visitations to Joseph, describing the plates and the Urim & Thummim and their use in translation. Moroni visited 3 times that night, sharing the same information. The U&T was described as having been prepared for the purpose of translation.

 

Later in the Joseph Smith History in the PoGP Joseph continues to talk about "translating". Without mention of the seer stone being used in translation wouldn't the natural assumption be that JS translated using the UT and plates as described in the JSH?

 

It seems the confusion over the translation begins with Joseph's own, inaccurate story. Does this false narrative in Joseph's own words cause apologists any problems with regard to Joseph's credibility on other truth claims?

 

 Joseph Smith History-

 

35 Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted “seers” in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.

 

 

62 By this timely aid was I enabled to reach the place of my destination in Pennsylvania; and immediately after my arrival there I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them, which I did between the time I arrived at the house of my wife’s father, in the month of December, and the February following.

 

Edited August 21, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[stemelbow]

Has anyone addressed the issue of Moroni's visitations to Joseph, describing the plates and the Urim & Thummim and their use in translation. Moroni visited 3 times that night, sharing the same information. The U&T was described as having been prepared for the purpose of translation.

 

Later in the Joseph Smith History in the PoGP Joseph continues to talk about "translating". Without mention of the seer stone being used in translation wouldn't the natural assumption be that JS translated using the UT and plates as described in the JSH?

 

It seems the confusion over the translation begins with Joseph's own, inaccurate story. Does this false narrative in Joseph's own words cause apologists any problems with regard to Joseph's credibility on other truth claims?

It could, but I don't think it needs to be a problem. Obviously, on Joseph's claims, the device was found with the plates. thus, as he understood it, it was necessary for seers in ancient times. It could be that Moroni understood the U&T being necessary for translation was going to be necessary for translation in the future. What Moroni might not have known is God could use many devices, or means to help with translation. Joseph used the phrase, "...and God had prepared them..." in the sense that we often apply activities to God that may not be--like God saving me from a wreck, or God finding my keys for me.

or it could be that God did prepare them but realized as the work was being done that it'd be easier for Joseph to use a seer stone.

But the quote doesn't really say what Joseph used for translation, only what was intended with the device that he found.

[HappyJackWagon]

It could, but I don't think it needs to be a problem. Obviously, on Joseph's claims, the device was found with the plates. thus, as he understood it, it was necessary for seers in ancient times. It could be that Moroni understood the U&T being necessary for translation was going to be necessary for translation in the future. What Moroni might not have known is God could use many devices, or means to help with translation. Joseph used the phrase, "...and God had prepared them..." in the sense that we often apply activities to God that may not be--like God saving me from a wreck, or God finding my keys for me.

or it could be that God did prepare them but realized as the work was being done that it'd be easier for Joseph to use a seer stone.

But the quote doesn't really say what Joseph used for translation, only what was intended with the device that he found.

Wouldn't it create a new problem if Moroni gave false/incorrect instructions because he didn't know God could use many devices. Wouldn't this call into question any angelic vision Jospeh had? If I can't count on an angel providing clear information from God it seems like trying to discern the will of God would be futile.

[Robert F. Smith]

........................................................

Imagination has always been an overused component of apologetics, but sometimes overemphasis can be overused as well.

 

Albert Einstein used to say that "imagination is more important than knowledge," and we often point to incompetent analyses as "lacking in imagination."  What matters most in all fair-minded analyses of the Bible or Book of Mormon (pro or con) is that one at least report the facts accurately, interpret them reasonably, and extrapolate from them in plausible ways.  One who doesn't have an axe to grind might be the most successful in doing that, which is why it is helpful to have non-Mormon, Gentile respectability.  One can tell from self-referential footnotes sometimes that the author is not a serious scholar and is unwilling to abide by the rules of mainstream scholarship in his field.

[Russell C McGregor]

Has anyone addressed the issue of Moroni's visitations to Joseph, describing the plates and the Urim & Thummim and their use in translation. Moroni visited 3 times that night, sharing the same information. The U&T was described as having been prepared for the purpose of translation.

 

Later in the Joseph Smith History in the PoGP Joseph continues to talk about "translating". Without mention of the seer stone being used in translation wouldn't the natural assumption be that JS translated using the UT and plates as described in the JSH?

 

It seems the confusion over the translation begins with Joseph's own, inaccurate story. Does this false narrative in Joseph's own words cause apologists any problems with regard to Joseph's credibility on other truth claims?

What's the matter, Happy Jack? Couldn't you load that question any more heavily?

[Sanpitch]

What's the matter, Happy Jack? Couldn't you load that question any more heavily?

I know you're almost perfect in everyway Russell but your church doesn't seem to agree with you on sarcasm.  From the LDS web site:  (you don't need a reference just do a search on the site.)  They don't seem to condon it:

 

"The Greek root for sarcasm is sarkazein and means “to tear flesh like dogs.”¹ One dictionary defines sarcasm as irony designed to “give pain.”² Sarcasm has many uses in our communication: it can convey aggression and insult,³ it can be used to dominate others,⁴ and it can communicate contempt and anger.^5"

 

^{Just so you know.}

Edited August 23, 2015 by Sanpitch

[Russell C McGregor]

I know you're almost perfect in everyway Russell...

And then you proceed to lecture me about "sarcasm."

How's your irony meter doing these days?

[Sanpitch]

And then you proceed to lecture me about "sarcasm."

How's your irony meter doing these days?

Yes, I admit it, I used sarcasm against you.  But I make my own rules and one of my rules is that it's alright to use sarcasm against someone who's full of sarcasm.  I think you're supposed to go by the teachings of the church.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Also I very rarely use sarcasm. 

[Russell C McGregor]

Yes, I admit it, I used sarcasm against you.  But I make my own rules and one of my rules is that it's alright to use sarcasm against someone who's full of sarcasm.

Even if your judgement was valid, which it is not, that's still a little different than modelling a behaviour while in the act of preaching against it.

I believe the correct term for that is "hypocrisy."

I think you're supposed to go by the teachings of the church.  Maybe I'm wrong.

I agree: it is wrong to preach double standards.

Also I very rarely use sarcasm.

Which makes a difference -- how?

[Sanpitch]

Even if your judgement was valid, which it is not, that's still a little different than modelling a behaviour while in the act of preaching against it.

I believe the correct term for that is "hypocrisy."

I agree: it is wrong to preach double standards.

Which makes a difference -- how?

Oh, well back to the Seer Stone and the U&T.  Farewell.