The State of the Evidence

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, atheists frequently say that because they are in denial.

Your remark is absurd and deals with nothing in the links I posted.  

You would find it offensive if someone said you are in denial that your claimed experience with the Holy Ghost is simply an emotional brain stimulated chemical response would you not.

 

[Kenngo1969]

Generally, if someone accepts what he considers to be evidence that his faith works for him, it's not my role or responsibility to question the validity of that evidence.  I'm not the trier of fact in that case.  Since we all see the world as it is rather than as we are, if his faith works for him, great. More power to him.  

Jurors render verdicts all the time that I might not agree with, and, since it seems to be one of the only viable uses for my (very-expensive! ) law degree, I feel perfectly free to play Monday-morning armchair quarterback.  But, as free as I might feel to play Monday-morning armchair quarterback in any given case, I was not the trier of fact in that case.  I didn't sit through the entire trial, I didn't hear all of the evidence, I didn't observe witnesses' demeanor, I didn't weigh evidence with my fellow jurors after hearing and being instructed how to apply the law by the judge, and so on, so my opinion (law degree or not) doesn't count for much.

As difficult as I imagine it might be to have a consistent, stable, workable set of morals without some kind of a faith paradigm, even if he doesn't believe in God, if he adheres to a notion that he should make life as good as he can make it for those he loves and for those around him for as long as they all inhabit this planet before succumbing to the void (according to his paradigm), "[he] shall in nowise lose [his] reward [according to my paradigm]" (Doctrine & Covenants 58:28).

If someone were a trier of fact looking at my case, they might conclude that I have plenty of reasons for not believing in God and/or for believing that this whole "living the Gospel" thing isn't what it's cracked up to be.  Though I must admit my current employer has treated me very well within its constraints to do so, I'd like a better job; I could definitely use more income (and not simply to buy more "toys" to play with or to keep up with the Joneses); I'd like that most expensive degree to pay off better than it has (and, apparently, better than it's going to): at the time, I felt inspired to get it (and I know, sure as heck, that I wouldn't have been able to get it without divine help); I'd like to have a (reasonably hot ) wife, maybe a couple of kids, a nice house and a nice car.  I have my flaws, but I'm at least as faithful as the average Latter-day Saint.  Still, by some accounts, haven't been "blessed" accordingly. What to do? Shake my widdo fist and stomp my widdo foot at how unfair the Sovereign Lord of the Universe is being?  (Yeah, like that'll work! Snort!)

The question I ask myself (Usually after, "Why me?" ) is, "Well, Ken, could things be worse?"  And the answer is, "Yep, absolutely they could."  Perhaps the person of faith I mention in my first paragraph is a prosperous adherent of the prosperity gospel.  What to do about, or how to reconcile, the fact that he has prospered while, apparently (comparatively speaking and materially speaking), I have not?  I dunno. Many of the "wicked" are going to fare better (at least in the short term, and at least in measurable terms) than many of the "righteous" are.  Whatever else He is or is not, God is also a Sovereign.

By the sort of reckoning I use above, my brother is even more faithful than the average Latter-day Saint, but, alas, that didn't prevent my sister-in-law from dying of cancer recently, so he has an even better reason than I do to ask, "Why me?" There's nothing in my interpretation of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ that indicates I'm going to prosper in any of the ways listed earlier simply for living it. "Come what may [or not] and love it"; "The Lord giveth, and the Lord hath taken away [or hath withheld].  Blessed be the name of the Lord"; and so on.  Again, whatever else He is or is not, God is also a Sovereign.

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, Ahab said:

My point is that the Book of Mormon, as we now have it, IS dependent on the KJV Bible, which is why it is now a KJV Book of Mormon.

And I also think my analogy of books having babies is worth at least a rep point or 2.

I think we might be using two different definitions of dependent. 

[consiglieri]

16 hours ago, Ahab said:

I seriously doubt that I am the first, but here goes.  A reasonable explanation for WHY the BOM is dependent on the KJV Bible is because Joseph had one handy and it suited his purposes in translating portions of what was written in the BOM.

As the translator he was as free to use any tools that were available to him to convey what the BOM had on its pages and he was more familiar with the KJV Bible as an example of sacred text and with that particular translation than any other translation of the Bible.

So far as I am aware, Sidney B. Sperry was the first person to posit this idea many decades ago in a volume he called, "Book of Mormon Problems."

First, it is interesting that Sperry felt he needed to go this far to explain away the obvious KJV dependence in the BOM.  None of the other ideas seemed reasonable to him, and indeed they are not reasonable.

So Sperry had to go all the way to theorizing that the reason the BOM is dependent on the KJV is because . . . well . . . the BOM is dependent on the KJV.  I.e., Joseph opened his KJV and started copying whenever it "suited his purposes" in translating what was written in the BOM.

A few points about this theory:

1. It does nothing to explain why it is that KJV Bible passages dated after Lehi left Jerusalem in 600 BCE should appear in the BOM.  (Let's not lose sight of the elephant in the living room, okay?)

2. The Sperry theory made better sense when we were still conceiving of the Church Art method of BOM translation; Joseph just looking at the plates and thinking real hard.  In that scenario, having a Bible handy to "help out" makes more sense than what the Church has just a year ago publicly stated the real translation method was--Joseph looking at a rock in a hat.  Think about it.  How does it work that Joseph is looking in a hat at words coming off a stone, and yet he suddenly knows that the words are the beginning of the entire Sermon on the Mount, so he runs for his Bible and starts copying?  At a minimum, this would mean that Joseph would have to be looking in his hat for some words; then taking his head out of the hat and comparing with his Bible to make sure they match; then reading them to his scribe; then sticking his head back in the hat for some more words; etc.  BUT OLIVER COWDERY NEVER MENTIONS ANYTHING LIKE THIS.  Nor do any of the other witnesses.

3. Finally, this theory runs head on into the eyewitness accounts that Joseph NEVER used any books (like a Bible) or papers during the BOM translation process.

 

So, in sum, the Sperry theory ends up being unreasonable, I think.

 

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

So far as I am aware, Sidney B. Sperry was the first person to posit this idea many decades ago in a volume he called, "Book of Mormon Problems."

First, it is interesting that Sperry felt he needed to go this far to explain away the obvious KJV dependence in the BOM.  None of the other ideas seemed reasonable to him, and indeed they are not reasonable.

So Sperry had to go all the way to theorizing that the reason the BOM is dependent on the KJV is because . . . well . . . the BOM is dependent on the KJV.  I.e., Joseph opened his KJV and started copying whenever it "suited his purposes" in translating what was written in the BOM.

A few points about this theory:

1. It does nothing to explain why it is that KJV Bible passages dated after Lehi left Jerusalem in 600 BCE should appear in the BOM.  (Let's not lose sight of the elephant in the living room, okay?)

2. The Sperry theory made better sense when we were still conceiving of the Church Art method of BOM translation; Joseph just looking at the plates and thinking real hard.  In that scenario, having a Bible handy to "help out" makes more sense than what the Church has just a year ago publicly stated the real translation method was--Joseph looking at a rock in a hat.  Think about it.  How does it work that Joseph is looking in a hat at words coming off a stone, and yet he suddenly knows that the words are the beginning of the entire Sermon on the Mount, so he runs for his Bible and starts copying?  At a minimum, this would mean that Joseph would have to be looking in his hat for some words; then taking his head out of the hat and comparing with his Bible to make sure they match; then reading them to his scribe; then sticking his head back in the hat for some more words; etc.  BUT OLIVER COWDERY NEVER MENTIONS ANYTHING LIKE THIS.  Nor do any of the other witnesses.

3. Finally, this theory runs head on into the eyewitness accounts that Joseph NEVER used any books (like a Bible) or papers during the BOM translation process.

So, in sum, the Sperry theory ends up being unreasonable, I think.

Imagine someone claimed to have discovered a lost poem supposedly written by Emily ****inson. One line of the poem describes her eating a kiwi fruit while lounging under a tree. We would note correctly that this is an anachronism, the kiwi fruit not having been exported to Europe until after World War II. The discoverer then says, well, we don't have the original poem, but a transcription based on a damaged manuscript, so the transcriber filled in missing words as he understood them. Fair enough, but suppose the poem goes on to describe the fruit's fuzzy brown skin, its translucent green flesh, and its numerous tiny black seeds surrounding a lighter-colored center. This expansion based on an anachronism can only be a further anachronism. This is what we see in the Book of Mormon: phrases and quotes from the KJV that are then used as the basis for exposition. 

For my money, the only explanation that makes even a bit of sense is Ostler's "modern expansion" theory, but then, if some of the book is modern in origin, who's to say it all isn't?

[consiglieri]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

For my money, the only explanation that makes even a bit of sense is Ostler's "modern expansion" theory, but then, if some of the book is modern in origin, who's to say it all isn't?

Would this be a bad time to bring up the fact that the theology set forth in the Book of Mormon is consonant with the Christianity being preached in Joseph's neck of the woods?

And perhaps we should no longer overlook the rather obvious fact that the Nephites seem to know as much about Jesus hundreds of years before his birth as the NT authors do afterward. 

This is simply more incontrovertible evidence that (at least these parts of) the Book of Mormon are a product of 19th century New York.

 

Edited July 1, 2016 by consiglieri

[consiglieri]

11 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Do you believe He created us? Do you believe He has the power to resurrect us?  

Do you believe Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon?  Do you believe he had the power to copy from the KJV?

[Gray]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't think that the BOM is dependent on the KJV.  I think God allowed JS to use the KJV because it was acceptable but I don't think that the bible had to have been used. If the KJV hadn't of been around (or hadn't of been acceptable), then we'd have the same teachings with different words and no bible connection.

So no, i really don't see what you mean.  

It's definitely dependent upon the KJV. That isn't really in question. The question is why. There are many different ideas on that subject.

[Gray]

11 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Well duh. I'm almost certain it gets His point across.

That's certainly possible, but unknowable. But that's kind of beside the point. 

[Gray]

37 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

So far as I am aware, Sidney B. Sperry was the first person to posit this idea many decades ago in a volume he called, "Book of Mormon Problems."

First, it is interesting that Sperry felt he needed to go this far to explain away the obvious KJV dependence in the BOM.  None of the other ideas seemed reasonable to him, and indeed they are not reasonable.

So Sperry had to go all the way to theorizing that the reason the BOM is dependent on the KJV is because . . . well . . . the BOM is dependent on the KJV.  I.e., Joseph opened his KJV and started copying whenever it "suited his purposes" in translating what was written in the BOM.

A few points about this theory:

1. It does nothing to explain why it is that KJV Bible passages dated after Lehi left Jerusalem in 600 BCE should appear in the BOM.  (Let's not lose sight of the elephant in the living room, okay?)

2. The Sperry theory made better sense when we were still conceiving of the Church Art method of BOM translation; Joseph just looking at the plates and thinking real hard.  In that scenario, having a Bible handy to "help out" makes more sense than what the Church has just a year ago publicly stated the real translation method was--Joseph looking at a rock in a hat.  Think about it.  How does it work that Joseph is looking in a hat at words coming off a stone, and yet he suddenly knows that the words are the beginning of the entire Sermon on the Mount, so he runs for his Bible and starts copying?  At a minimum, this would mean that Joseph would have to be looking in his hat for some words; then taking his head out of the hat and comparing with his Bible to make sure they match; then reading them to his scribe; then sticking his head back in the hat for some more words; etc.  BUT OLIVER COWDERY NEVER MENTIONS ANYTHING LIKE THIS.  Nor do any of the other witnesses.

3. Finally, this theory runs head on into the eyewitness accounts that Joseph NEVER used any books (like a Bible) or papers during the BOM translation process.

 

So, in sum, the Sperry theory ends up being unreasonable, I think.

 

They eyewitness accounts are important, of course, but eyewitness accounts are not unassailable. Testimony is not more reliable evidence than physical evidence, for instance. 

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Would this be a bad time to bring up the fact that the theology set forth in the Book of Mormon is consonant with the Christianity being preached in Joseph's neck of the woods?

And perhaps we should no longer overlook the rather obvious fact that the Nephites seem to know as much about Jesus hundreds of years before his birth as the NT authors do afterward. 

This is simply more incontrovertible evidence that (at least these parts of) the Book of Mormon are a product of 19th century New York.

 

 

 

Quote

Ah, you catch me unprepared. I said in another post you should not challenge standard belief without evidence in hand. All I can say here is that while reading Alma in the Book of Mormon I began to google long phrases from the sermons, and they came up in sermons in very much the same doctrinal context. All the talk about Jesus in the Book of Mormon, its glory we would say, has a 19th century ring to it. In my opinion, we should become the experts on this material and figure out what it tells us about translation and the nature of the text. - Richard Bushman

https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/comments/3dnmfn/richard_bushman_ama_3_pm_to_6_pm_eastern_time/

Edited July 1, 2016 by Gray

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Would this be a bad time to bring up the fact that the theology set forth in the Book of Mormon is consonant with the Christianity being preached in Joseph's neck of the woods?

That could indicate expansion theory. 

17 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

And perhaps we should no longer overlook the rather obvious fact that the Nephites seem to know as much about Jesus hundreds of years before his birth as the NT authors do afterward. 

This is simply more incontrovertible evidence that (at least these parts of) the Book of Mormon are a product of 19th century New York.

 

Then we're left with opposing view, like from Gardiner and Ostler.  In that the ancient material in the text of the book should not be overlooked.  There are both, as they see it, a 19th theme, and ancient elements. 

If the Book of Mormon represents anything from what we call Nephite times then it is so much more a complicated rendition than just saying it is a translation by the gift and power of God of gold plates found by Joseph Smith.  It's almost as if Joseph were taken elsewhere at times and had explanations given to him that helped him break away from his 19th century shell, only to include elements most familiar to him. 

[rongo]

On 6/29/2016 at 10:57 AM, Nevo said:

The short answer [i.e., to whether or not you believe that there were actual brass or golden plates] is no . . . I'd still like to believe that the Book of Mormon is some sort of ancient-modern hybrid but I am increasingly coming to see it as a wholly modern production. As things stand now, I have a good deal more confidence in critical biblical scholarship's take on Deutero-Isaiah than I do in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. But for believers like yourself who are convinced that the Book of Mormon is ancient, I can see why the "Isaiah problem" would be a non-issue.

 

Thank you for your response! I asked because that's something I've noticed: LDS proponents of "higher criticism," in my experience, don't believe in the objective reality of the brass/golden plates or miraculous/supernatural occurrences in the Bible or the Book of Mormon. In my experience, this is really the crux, the dividing line, and the determinant as to whether one gravitates towards purely naturalistic textual and historical explanations (i.e., the sun rising and setting with Secular Scholarship™) or is open to miracles. 

I disagree with your assessment that Dr. Sperry --- though his analysis was good for 75 years ago --- would probably throw his hat in with the Bokovoy "higher criticism" Mormon scholars and concede multiple authorship for Isaiah. Despite what you and others claim (that an evolutionary mindset for textual criticism necessarily means that more recent scholarly opinions are more sophisticated and solid), modern scholars haven't produced or provided arguments beyond what Sperry treated back then. The same reasons cited "back then" for claiming multiple "Isaiahs" over centuries are the same reasons cited today --- there aren't "new and improved" reasons.

Excerpts from his article: 

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/JBMRS/article/view/19747

Quote

 "We have here a good example of that which has happened not a few times, in the history of literary criticism, where scholars have felt obliged to pare down a writing to make it fit a mistaken theory.  The paring process, begun with a penknife, is continued with a hatchet, until the book has been chopped into hopeless chunks."  (Dr. Charles C. Torrey)

Those scholars who in time past have denied the unity of the book of Isaiah may be divided into two groups, moderates and radicals.  For convenience, as well as for its inherent interest, I present herewith a list of chapters and verses in Isaiah rejected by the moderates as having come from the pen of that prophet.  The scholars represented in this group are Driver, G. A. Smith, Skinner, Kirkpatrick, Konig, A. B. Davidson, and Whitehouse.  They throw out 11:10-16; 12:1-6; 13:1 to 14:23; 15:1 to 16:12; 21:1-10; 2427; 34-35; 36:39; 40-66.  Of a total of 66 chapters they believe some 44 were not written by Isaiah.  If we look over the results of the radical wing of the critical school we find it more convenient to list the verses they believe were genuinely Isaiah's.  The radicals are represented by such men as Drs. Cheyne, Duhm, Hackmann, Guthe, and Marti.  They accept 1:2-26, 29-31; 2:6-19; 3:1, 5, 8, 9, 12-17, 24; 4:1; 5:1-14, 17-29; 6:1-13; 7:1 to 8:22; 9:8 to 10:9; 10:13, 14, 27-32; 14:24-32; 17:1-14; 18:1-6; 20:1-6; 22:1-22; 28:1-4, 7-22; 29:1-6, 9, 10, 13-15; 30:1-17; 31:1-4. Only about 262 verses of a total of 1292 in Isaiah are considered to be the genuine product of Isaiah. [/quote]

The main reason at the heart of questioning Isaiah as the author, is a denial of the possibility of *actual* predictive prophecy. I would tie this in with my earlier point about how belief/disbelief in the brass/golden plates is a determinant of whether one rejects Isaiah as the author of Isaiah:

 

Quote

1.  A twofold postulate is made to the effect that a prophet always spoke out of a definite historical situation to the present needs of the people among whom he lived; and that a definite historical situation shall be pointed out for each prophecy. One scholar has said:  "It is a first principle that the historical horizon of a prophet belongs to his own time.  He takes his stand in his own generation and looks onward from it."  Put into plain English, this scholar meant that a prophet cannot see beyond the horizon of his own times . . . The critics who dismember Isaiah openly or tacitly deny the predictive element in prophecy. 

“The newer criticism bans all who still venture to maintain Isaiah's authorship as devoid of science, and indeed of conscience as well.  To it, that authorship is as impossible as any miracle in the domain of nature, history, and spirit. In its eyes only those prophecies find favor, of which a naturalistic explanation can be given.  It knows exactly how far a prophet can see and where he must stand in order to see so far” (Franz Delitzsch)

It is the rejection of the possibility or existence of prophecy that compels looking for reasons to deny Isaiahan authorship, not the other way around (i.e., the textual evidence for assuming multiple authors writing at different time periods is so compelling that one is forced to admit that they couldn't be prophecies). Hence, the need to find literary style differences between the different Schichten in Isaiah (or whatever book is being subjected to "higher criticism")

 

Quote

2.  The literary style of those chapters held not to be from Isaiah is very different from those which are admitted to be that prophet's.

Quote

3.  The theological ideas of the non-Isaianic portions of the prophecy differ from those of Isaiah. 

Quote

4. Dr. G. L. Robinson’s summary of remaining minor reasons for assuming multiple Isaiah authorship:

(1) To one critic "the conversion of the heathen" lay quite beyond the horizon of any eighth century prophet and consequently Isaiah 2:2-4 and all similar passages should be relegated to a subsequent age.
(2) To another "the picture of universal peace" in Isaiah 11:1-9 is a symptom of a late date and therefore the section must be deleted.
(3) To another the thought of universal judgment upon "the whole earth" in chapter 14:26 quite transcends Isaiah's range of thought.
(4) To still another the apocalyptic character of chapters 24-27 represents a phase of Hebrew thought which prevailed in Israel only after Ezekiel.
(5) Even to those who are considered moderate the poetic character of a passage like chapter 12 and the reference to a return from captivity as in 11:11-16 and the promises and consolations such as are found in chapter 33, are cited as grounds for assigning these and kindred passages to a much later date.  Radicals deny in toto the existence of Messianic passages in Isaiah's own prophecies.

Near the end of his treatment of Deutero/Trito-Isaiahists, Sperry writes:

 

Quote

Dr. W. H. Green, one of the finest Hebraists America ever produced, observed that a noted critic, Dr. H. E. Ryle, had concluded that chapters 1-39 of Isaiah were compiled a short time before the period of Nehemiah (444 B.C.), but that chapters 40-66, though not of so late a date as some of the preceding chapters, could only have been added a century and a half later, "when the recollection of the authorship of this section having been forgotten, it could, not unnaturally, be appended to the writings of Isaiah." Dr. Green in answer said:

So the critics first dissect Isaiah, and then find it impossible to get the disjointed pieces together again without putting the collection of the canon at a date at variance with historical testimony and every reliable indication bearing on the subject.  It is, indeed, a puzzling question which the critics have to solve, and to which no satisfactory answer can be given, how it came to pass that this prince of prophets, living, as we are told, near the end of the exile, whose predictions of the coming deliverance and the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple were so strikingly fulfilled, and who must have stirred the souls of the exiles to an unwonted degree with his glowing enthusiasm, could be so utterly unknown, and not only his name, but his very existence so entirely forgotten, that his prophecies were attributed to another, who lived at a different period of time, and under entirely different circumstances.  But if the exigencies of the critical hypothesis demand a long interval to account for this complete oblivion, does it follow that the recognition of the divine authority of this magnificent prophecy was delayed?[/quote]

No, I don't think Sperry would find the intervening 75 years of Isaiah scholarship compelling reasons to change his views.

 

Edited July 1, 2016 by rongo

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

Thank you for your response! I asked because that's something I've noticed: LDS proponents of "higher criticism," in my experience, don't believe in the objective reality of the brass/golden plates or miraculous/supernatural occurrences in the Bible or the Book of Mormon. In my experience, this is really the crux, the dividing line, and the determinant as to whether one gravitates towards purely naturalistic textual and historical explanations (i.e., the sun rising and setting with Secular Scholarship™) or is open to miracles. 

 

I disagree with your assessment that Dr. Sperry --- though his analysis was good for 75 years ago --- would probably throw his hat in with the Bokovoy "higher criticism" Mormon scholars and concede multiple authorship for Isaiah. Despite what you and others claim (that an evolutionary mindset for textual criticism necessarily means that more recent scholarly opinions are more sophisticated and solid), modern scholars haven't produced or provided arguments beyond what Sperry treated back then. The same reasons cited "back then" for claiming multiple "Isaiahs" over centuries are the same reasons cited today --- there aren't "new and improved" reasons.

 

Excerpts from his article: 

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/JBMRS/article/view/19747

 

 

As I understand it even most conservative scholars (including scholars who believe in the supernatural) accept that Isaiah has multiple authors. You don't have to reject the supernatural to accept the evidence here.

Side note: there is no such thing as the supernatural in Mormon theology. But that's neither here nor there. 

[rongo]

On 6/29/2016 at 4:33 PM, Nevo said:

The problem is that Jesus never gave the Sermon on the Mount—it's a Matthean composition.

See above. 

Some defer to the opinions of Secular Scholarship™ in all things. When Secular Scholarship™ has spoken, the thinking is done.

I think that the same problems of "higher criticism" applied to Isaiah apply when it is applied to the New Testament. That is, secular scholarship's attempts to determine what Jesus actually said and what were later accretions have the same problems --- and really only reveal the author's Stimmung. 

I agree with Dr. Sperry. Because I believe that there actually were brass plates and golden plates, the existence of the Book of Mormon proves (to me) that the brass plates contained the book of Isaiah --- including Deutero-Isaiah. Similarly, the Book of Mormon proves (to me) that Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount.

[consiglieri]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

They eyewitness accounts are important, of course, but eyewitness accounts are not unassailable. Testimony is not more reliable evidence than physical evidence, for instance. 

I agree.

Strangely, the very fact that the BOM is so obviously dependent on the KJV Bible raises more questions than it answers.

The KJV was incorporated into the BOM in one of two ways: (1) Either Joseph used the KJV openly in front of the witnesses; or, (2) Joseph used the KJV discreetly without the witnesses knowing.

1. If Joseph used the KJV openly in front of the witnesses, it is strange that none of them mention it, and at least one even goes so far as to say Joseph NEVER used any books during the process of translation (was that Emma?).

Would none of the witnesses have found such KJV use by Joseph a little suspicious?  A little troubling?  Perhaps requiring at least an explanation?  And yet no mention is made of any such thing.

The only other possibility here is that the witnesses were "in on it" and they knew perfectly well that Joseph used the KJV Bible, but wanted to cover his tracks for him by not mentioning it and even going so far as to say he never used any books or papers.  This also strikes me as unlikely.  Especially what with Oliver leaving the Church and everything.

 

2. If Joseph used the KJV discreetly without the witnesses knowing, how did he manage that?

Some have postulated a superhuman memory on Joseph's part.  But really, I find that unlikely, given the vast swaths of the KJV that show up in the Book of Mormon.  And not only the big pieces, but all the little pieces scatter throughout.  This theory seems to me a way of trying to find some way to account for what is a wonderful mystery.  In other words, the problem is solved by creating superhuman abilities in Joseph Smith. 

The reason the superhuman memory is relied upon is because Joseph actually produced this book out of his hat, which would have made it difficult for Joseph to have stuck the family Bible in the bottom of his hat (with the stone), and then to be able to see it with his head over the top; not to mention turning the pages when necessary.  Or did Joseph tear out pages of a Bible and stuff them in the bottom of the hat?  The difficult with seeing the pages again reasserts itself, not to mention turning the pages over to continue "translating."

 

So this is a very interesting conundrum at the heart of the Book of Mormon, which has to do with its translation.

But, and it must be reemphasized here, this has nothing to do with the issue of whether the Book of Mormon is dependent on the KJV Bible.

It certainly is.  If it were not, we would not have this delightful mystery. 

 

 

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I agree.

Strangely, the very fact that the BOM is so obviously dependent on the KJV Bible raises more questions than it answers.

The KJV was incorporated into the BOM in one of two ways: (1) Either Joseph used the KJV openly in front of the witnesses; or, (2) Joseph used the KJV discreetly without the witnesses knowing.

1. If Joseph used the KJV openly in front of the witnesses, it is strange that none of them mention it, and at least one even goes so far as to say Joseph NEVER used any books during the process of translation (was that Emma?).

Would none of the witnesses have found such KJV use by Joseph a little suspicious?  A little troubling?  Perhaps requiring at least an explanation?  And yet no mention is made of any such thing.

The only other possibility here is that the witnesses were "in on it" and they knew perfectly well that Joseph used the KJV Bible, but wanted to cover his tracks for him by not mentioning it and even going so far as to say he never used any books or papers.  This also strikes me as unlikely.  Especially what with Oliver leaving the Church and everything.

 

2. If Joseph used the KJV discreetly without the witnesses knowing, how did he manage that?

Some have postulated a superhuman memory on Joseph's part.  But really, I find that unlikely, given the vast swaths of the KJV that show up in the Book of Mormon.  And not only the big pieces, but all the little pieces scatter throughout.  This theory seems to me a way of trying to find some way to account for what is a wonderful mystery.  In other words, the problem is solved by creating superhuman abilities in Joseph Smith. 

The reason the superhuman memory is relied upon is because Joseph actually produced this book out of his hat, which would have made it difficult for Joseph to have stuck the family Bible in the bottom of his hat (with the stone), and then to be able to see it with his head over the top; not to mention turning the pages when necessary.  Or did Joseph tear out pages of a Bible and stuff them in the bottom of the hat?  The difficult with seeing the pages again reasserts itself, not to mention turning the pages over to continue "translating."

 

So this is a very interesting conundrum at the heart of the Book of Mormon, which has to do with its translation.

But, and it must be reemphasized here, this has nothing to do with the issue of whether the Book of Mormon is dependent on the KJV Bible.

It certainly is.  If it were not, we would not have this delightful mystery. 

 

 

A third possibility: Joseph quoted it from memory. That might explain the variations from the KJV text. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

2. The Sperry theory made better sense when we were still conceiving of the Church Art method of BOM translation; Joseph just looking at the plates and thinking real hard.  In that scenario, having a Bible handy to "help out" makes more sense than what the Church has just a year ago publicly stated the real translation method was--Joseph looking at a rock in a hat.  Think about it.  How does it work that Joseph is looking in a hat at words coming off a stone, and yet he suddenly knows that the words are the beginning of the entire Sermon on the Mount, so he runs for his Bible and starts copying?  At a minimum, this would mean that Joseph would have to be looking in his hat for some words; then taking his head out of the hat and comparing with his Bible to make sure they match; then reading them to his scribe; then sticking his head back in the hat for some more words; etc.  BUT OLIVER COWDERY NEVER MENTIONS ANYTHING LIKE THIS.  Nor do any of the other witnesses.

3. Finally, this theory runs head on into the eyewitness accounts that Joseph NEVER used any books (like a Bible) or papers during the BOM translation process.

I made this point earlier, but nobody commented on it. I'll be charitable, and not claim that the critics here are ignoring it or capitulating in silence.  But you are inadvertently making the same point. 

Given the witness statements and what we know about the translation/dictation/transcription process, how do you account for the large sections of KJV in the Book of Mormon (including NT material)? Like you, I reject Sperry's theory that Joseph Smith copied from the Bible at times. The witnesses make it clear that it was dictated without texts, manuscripts, or books. So --- how do we account for large sections that would be as big a miracle (in terms of super-human memory/recall) as any "angels bringing books?" 

I had made the point earlier that Joseph's mother said that Joseph was the least-inclined of all her children to read. Yet, he has world-record savant total recall of the Bible. To me, this indicates that he was profoundly affected by what he had been told by God/Jesus, Moroni, and others, and this motivated him to read the Bible --- with Spirit-aided superhuman feats of memory. 

I also think that this indicates that God intended that the large sections of the KJV Bible --- including from the NT --- were supposed to be in the Book of Mormon. Exactly as they are recorded.

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think God allowed JS to use the KJV because it was acceptable but I don't think that the bible had to have been used. If the KJV hadn't of been around (or hadn't of been acceptable), then we'd have the same teachings with different words and no bible connection.

So no, i really don't see what you mean.  

I think it is absolutely possible for God to inspire JS to pick up and utilize the Sermon on the Mount and Isaiah chapters directly from the bible. That seems very reasonable to me. How many of us, when preparing a talk for church is inspired to utilize certain scriptures or conference talks etc. That's definitely possible for JS and the BoM as well.

The problem comes with the narrative of HOW Joseph translated from literal plates that were completely unnecessary to the "translation" process. I can certainly get behind the idea of the BoM as scripture, ie sacred text. But based on the evidence, it becomes much harder for me to accept it as a sacred text with a narrative of provenance that doesn't hold up.

IOW- The book of Mormon can be scripture even though there were no gold plates and no historical lamanites/Nephites. The trouble comes when the church tries to maintain the very rigid origin story.

[rongo]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

As I understand it even most conservative scholars (including scholars who believe in the supernatural) accept that Isaiah has multiple authors. You don't have to reject the supernatural to accept the evidence here.

Friendly CFR for a list of conservative scholars who believe in the supernatural (i.e., actual, predictive prophecy, reality of the resurrection, reality of OT and NT miracles, etc.) who are on record as accepting multiple authorship of Isaiah. I'm not going to browbeat you on the CFR, but I would be very surprised if anyone outside of the Church can be names who can be proven in print to meet all these criteria.

Bible scholars (even today) insist on multiple authorship for the very reasons that Sperry pointed out so long ago. 90%+ of which has to do with their difficulty in believing that Isaiah could have predicted and known about events after his time.

Side note: there is no such thing as the supernatural in Mormon theology. But that's neither here nor there.

Granted, but to outsiders, Mormon theology sure accepts some pretty supernatural things . . .

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The problem comes with the narrative of HOW Joseph translated from literal plates that were completely unnecessary to the "translation" process. I can certainly get behind the idea of the BoM as scripture, ie sacred text. But based on the evidence, it becomes much harder for me to accept it as a sacred text with a narrative of provenance that doesn't hold up.

I think the main function of the plates was to inspire confidence in Joseph Smith and in the witnesses (the formal 11, and others, including women, who observed the day-to-day translation). I believe that the plates were necessary for Joseph early on in the process, but as he gained experience with it, became unnecessary (and he didn't use them for most of it). In other words, the plates served an important function early in the process, mostly as a faith aid and confidence-builder.

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think the main function of the plates was to inspire confidence in Joseph Smith and in the witnesses (the formal 11, and others, including women, who observed the day-to-day translation). I believe that the plates were necessary for Joseph early on in the process, but as he gained experience with it, became unnecessary (and he didn't use them for most of it). In other words, the plates served an important function early in the process, mostly as a faith aid and confidence-builder.

That's fine. You're arguing that the plates were Dumbo's feather. But you realize that's a totally different story and purpose for the plates than was originally taught, right?

 

[Gray]

22 minutes ago, rongo said:

Friendly CFR for a list of conservative scholars who believe in the supernatural (i.e., actual, predictive prophecy, reality of the resurrection, reality of OT and NT miracles, etc.) who are on record as accepting multiple authorship of Isaiah. I'm not going to browbeat you on the CFR, but I would be very surprised if anyone outside of the Church can be names who can be proven in print to meet all these criteria.

Bible scholars (even today) insist on multiple authorship for the very reasons that Sperry pointed out so long ago. 90%+ of which has to do with their difficulty in believing that Isaiah could have predicted and known about events after his time.

 

 

Granted, but to outsiders, Mormon theology sure accepts some pretty supernatural things . . .

I'll work on answering the CFR.

But there are many reasons to believe that Isaiah was written by mutliple authors, that go way beyond rejecting the idea of someone predicting the future. 

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

This expansion based on an anachronism can only be a further anachronism. This is what we see in the Book of Mormon: phrases and quotes from the KJV that are then used as the basis for exposition. 

Grant Hardy, in Understanding the Book of Mormon, provides a detailed description of this process in Ether 12.

Hardy introduces his analysis with the observation that Moroni "incorporates clusters of distinctive phrases as well as argumentative structures from several thematically and verbally linked source texts, and then integrating these varied allusions into a coherent whole." However, one of the source texts is the Letter to the Hebrews—a fact that Hardy admits is "glaringly problematic" given that "any quotations in the Book of Mormon from biblical writings composed after 600 BC are anachronistic, potentially challenging both the book's historicity and its credibility" (255).

Hardy notes numerous intertextual links between Ether 12 and Hebrews (e.g., Ether 12:4 and Heb 6:19; Ether 12:8 and Heb 6:4; Ether 12:17, 22 and Heb 6:15; Ether 12:19 and Heb 6:19) and then makes this comment (that goes to your point about expansion): "As this cluster of allusions from Hebrew 6 suggests, the common phrases here are not simply the haphazard result of a biblically literate translator putting ideas into an idiom respected by his readers. There appears, rather, to be a direct connection between the contents of the two chapters, with Moroni (or Joseph Smith) deliberately reworking his source, in much the same fashion as we have seen him incorporate prior Book of Mormon texts" (256; emphasis added).

Hardy continues: "This observation is strengthened when we consider the many allusions in Ether 12 to Hebrews 11." Ether 12:6, he notes, is an "overt, though unattributed" quotation of Hebrews 11:1. "After this famous definition of faith, the author of Hebrews provides a long list of things accomplished by faith, including the creation of the world and specific actions taken by Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses' parents, Moses, the children of Israel, Rahab, Gideon, and others. Moroni begins section II of Ether 12 with almost identical language and then proceeds to offer a parallel list of how faith made possible the appearance of Christ among the Nephites, the giving and fulfilling of the law of Moses, the prison escape of Alma and Amulek, the receiving of the Holy Ghost by the Lamanite guards of Nephi and Lehi, the missionary successes of Ammon and the other sons of Mosiah, the death-defying transformation of the Three Nephites, and the vision the brother of Jared had of the pre-mortal Christ. Both Hebrews 11 and Ether 12 also include numerous repetitions of the expression 'by faith' (sixteen times in Hebrews, eleven in Ether). There can be little doubt that Moroni's discourse on faith at Ether 12 is, in some way, based on the Epistle to the Hebrews, but it is more than simply an imitation; it is a creative adaptation" (256–257; emphasis added).

He reiterates this last point a few pages later: "There is certainly a great deal of biblical language in Ether 12, some of it quite specific in its origins, but taken as a whole, the chapter is not a case of easy plagiarism or randomly recalled phrases. Its various elements, both borrowed and original, are interwoven into an integrated, carefully constructed essay" (260). Hardy, to his credit, doesn't avoid the implications: Ether 12's "clear and thorough dependence on Hebrews 6 and 11. . . [is] some of the most compelling evidence that the book has its origins in the nineteenth century" (260).

I honestly don't see how anyone can look at this and say "I don't think that the BOM is dependent on the KJV."

Edited July 1, 2016 by Nevo

[jkwilliams]

17 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Grant Hardy, in Understanding the Book of Mormon, provides a detailed description of this process in Ether 12.

Hardy introduces his analysis with the observation that Moroni "incorporates clusters of distinctive phrases as well as argumentative structures from several thematically and verbally linked source texts, and then integrating these varied allusions into a coherent whole." However, one of the source texts is the Letter to the Hebrews—a fact that Hardy admits is "glaringly problematic" given that "any quotations in the Book of Mormon from biblical writings composed after 600 BC are anachronistic, potentially challenging both the book's historicity and its credibility" (255).

Hardy notes numerous intertextual links between Ether 12 and Hebrews (e.g., Ether 12:4 and Heb 6:19; Ether 12:8 and Heb 6:4; Ether 12:17, 22 and Heb 6:15; Ether 12:19 and Heb 6:19) and then makes this comment (that goes to your point about expansion): "As this cluster of allusions from Hebrew 6 suggests, the common phrases here are not simply the haphazard result of a biblically literate translator putting ideas into an idiom respected by his readers. There appears, rather, to be a direct connection between the contents of the two chapters, with Moroni (or Joseph Smith) deliberately reworking his source, in much the same fashion as we have seen him incorporate prior Book of Mormon texts" (256; emphasis added).

Hardy continues: "This observation is strengthened when we consider the many allusions in Ether 12 to Hebrews 11." Ether 12:6, he notes, is an "overt, though unattributed" quotation of Hebrews 11:1. "After this famous definition of faith, the author of Hebrews provides a long list of things accomplished by faith, including the creation of the world and specific actions taken by Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses' parents, Moses, the children of Israel, Rahab, Gideon, and others. Moroni begins section II of Ether 12 with almost identical language and then proceeds to offer a parallel list of how faith made possible the appearance of Christ among the Nephites, the giving and fulfilling of the law of Moses, the prison escape of Alma and Amulek, the receiving of the Holy Ghost by the Lamanite guards of Nephi and Lehi, the missionary successes of Ammon and the other sons of Mosiah, the death-defying transformation of the Three Nephites, and the vision the brother of Jared had of the pre-mortal Christ. Both Hebrews 11 and Ether 12 also include numerous repetitions of the expression 'by faith' (sixteen times in Hebrews, eleven in Ether). There can be little doubt that Moroni's discourse on faith at Ether 12 is, in some way, based on the Epistle to the Hebrews, but it is more than simply an imitation; it is a creative adaptation" (256–257; emphasis added).

He reiterates this last point a few pages later: "There is certainly a great deal of biblical language in Ether 12, some of it quite specific in its origins, but taken as a whole, the chapter is not a case of easy plagiarism or randomly recalled phrases. Its various elements, both borrowed and original, are interwoven into an integrated, carefully constructed essay" (260). Hardy, to his credit, doesn't avoid the implications: Ether 12's "clear and thorough dependence on Hebrews 6 and 11. . . [is] some of the most compelling evidence that the book has its origins in the nineteenth century" (260).

I honestly don't see how anyone can look at this and say "I don't think that the BOM is dependent on the KJV."

I'm not aware of any apologetic arguments that address this, other than Ostler's. The Welch and Sorensen articles Kevin C. posted don't deal with this, as far as I can see.