19th century Protestant language in Book of Mormon

[clarkgoble]

23 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

A few elements of later Tironian are purported to be of Greek origin. It is an as-yet unproven theory.

Even if so, later elements of Tironian script, thousands of them, were added centuries after Tiro's arrival, so who is to say that he and/or others didn't simply adapt/alter what was readily available in other shorthands, rather than do it all ex-ni[p]hilo. ;0)

I believe Tironian derives from early Egyptian shorthand through Nephite clerical tradition. 

I find the idea that a Nephite exposed to an esoteric priestly shorthand went to Rome and became a slave who invented a Latin shorthand rather dubious I confess.

The bigger issue are similarities to glyphs on the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar. The one thing we know is it bears little or no connection to demotic or the like. While some characters are similar to Tironian shorthand most aren't. The question is the origin of Tironian glyphs and their connection to the Latin alphabet as well as the older Phoenician alphabet.

 

 

[notHagoth7]

31 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I find the idea that a Nephite exposed to an esoteric priestly shorthand went to Rome and became a slave who invented a Latin shorthand rather dubious I confess.

Jared's Guns, Germs, and Steel, cited elsewhere in this forum this week, cites precisely just such seemingly-dubious-yet-historical realities.

And I'm not suggesting that TIro invented Latin shorthand. Rather that he adapted Nephite shorthand to the new-to-him [Latin] language.

Similar to some degree what Wulfila did for the Gothic Bible.

And what Cyril and Methodius did for other peoples. Etc.

And what Odin supposedly did for his people.

Technology is technology. And since various corners of ancient Europe rapidly adopted Nephite skills in government, warfare, iron production, agriculture, cement expertise, and more, why ignore the much-needed element of shorthand?

31 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The bigger issue are similarities to glyphs on the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar. The one thing we know is it bears little or no connection to demotic or the like.

Not sure how that relates to later Nephite writing. But certainly willing to hear you out. Listening.

31 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

 

31 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

...The question is the origin of Tironian glyphs and their connection to the Latin alphabet as well as the older Phoenician alphabet.

If that's the question... a clear answer is that the Phoenician alphabet is known to be a reformed Egyptian. As is the Latin alphabet that we all use in this forum.

 

If these answers don't work for you, that's OK.  Still offered for consideration for you...and others.

Edited March 9, 2017 by notHagoth7

[Danzo]

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Yet he was very well-versed in the religious of his day and it wasn't uncommon for people to have most of the Bible memorized. Thus it would not be strange if Joseph could have recited large portions of the Bible from memory.

yes, but do we have any evidence that Joseph Smith had most of the bible memorized?

I thought I read somewhere that he didn't know that Jerusalem had a wall when he was translating the Book of Mormon.

I know that whenever I have read anything that Joseph wrote in the earlier years, that its pretty apparent that he wasn't very literate.

[Danzo]

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Now at age forty, having been emotionally detached from the church because of certain circumstances, I can say to the magician,  "I see what you did there."

but all of the rest of us are deceived.  If only we knew what you know.

Have you ever thought that some of might have the same information (maybe some of us might have a bit more) and come to a different conclusion?

Or our emotions so strong that we just can't see anything clearly. Only the light from someone emotionally detached can lead us out from the "foolish traditions of our fathers"

[clarkgoble]

41 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

And I'm not suggesting that TIro invented Latin shorthand. Rather that he adapted Nephite shorthand to the new-to-him [Latin] language.

Technology is technology. And since various corners of ancient Europe rapidly adopted Nephite skills in government, warfare, iron production, agriculture, cement expertise, and more, why ignore the much-needed element of shorthand?

Again the question is how tied the shorthand is to Latin. It's not at all clear to me that the glyphs are that unique and further it appears to be a phonetic shorthand (as many are). In other word if the problem is the glyphs, you're really not gaining anything. If the issue is the shorthand functionality it's not at all clear that the Book of Mormon was done in a phonetic shorthand. So exactly what does this convoluted explanation solve? I'm not seeing it.

It seems an ridiculously unnecessarily complex explanation to explain an anti-Mormon's writer finding that several of the glyphs in the Anthon Transcript match glyphs in this shorthand without comparing to see if the glyphs predate Tiro (which most do). It doesn't explain at all the question of the text of the Book of Mormon nor the vast majority of Anthon characters not in Tironian. As I said the more interesting question are the ties to the Alphabet and Grammar characters, similarities to the pseudo-Egyptian characters put in to replace missing parts of the vignettes on the papyri and so forth.

Edited March 9, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm open to other terms but why don't you want the term? That's what would be logically entailed. 

I'll weigh in on this since I mentioned I don't like using that term as well.  

I don't see it as productive, because of how people feel about the implications of such a term when it comes to religious convictions and people devote their entire life and orient their self worth and their moral values to these religious convictions.

If we can agree on some assumptions, like Joseph Smith dictated the BoM to scribes, then we can move forward on common ground and discuss what sources of information influenced his dictation.  Most of us agree that Joseph's culture and environment comes into play, as well as the KJV.  To what extent do these data sources get incorporated into the finished product of the BoM?  Was he copying directly from the KJV at times.  Did he attend camp meetings and incorporate narratives taught at local meetings into the BoM?  Did he incorporate elements of visions and stories in his immediate and extended family into the text?  

All of these questions can be discussed without talking about what Joseph's personal motivations for this were.  His personal motivations for why he did these things is a much harder question to evaluate, and doesn't always need to be a part of literary or historical critical discussion, I think that if we put that question to the side for this discussion we can be much more productive.  

[notHagoth7]

11 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

...I think it's likely that Joseph drew from his family's stories, from the Bible, from books...and even from revivalist preachers of the time, to write the Book of Mormon.

It's the magic hat trick that is troubling...presenting it as a translation of a real record....

But that is a sleight of hand, be it intentionally so or be it sincere. Now at age forty, having been emotionally detached from the church because of certain circumstances, I can say to the magician,  "I see what you did there."

But Meadow, can you see?

Are you sure?

• Did Joseph foretell through Ezekiel that two distinct records of the tribes of Israel would lead to the latter-day unification of God's people? 
• Did Joseph foretell through Jesus of Nazareth that there were sheep of another fold...and that Christ's message to them would lead to the latter-day unification of God's people?
• Did Joseph then twist the arms of modern, non-LDS Bible translators to cross reference between that promise in Ezekiel 37 and its counterpart in John 10...demonstrating in the Bible that another record/testament of God's people/mercies would be unfolded? (My Danish Lutheran BIble is one of many such unwitting examples.)

 

• Did Joseph inspire the several Biblical passages that point to 1844 in prophecy?
• Did Joseph convince tens of thousands of Christians and Muslims across several nations to believe that Bible timelines would be fulfilled precisely in 1844?
• And did Joseph then twist the arms of his soon-to-be-killers to ensure that the martyrdom of he and his brother precisely fulfilled those prophetic timelines?

 

• Did Joseph make up the entire notion of Nephite migrations (scatterings and gatherings)...which have their clear and precise counterparts in ancient/medieval European records (among other places), the most important of which would not even be translated into English until long after his martyrdom?

 

• Etc., etc.

Did you see what God did/does there?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

yes, but do we have any evidence that Joseph Smith had most of the bible memorized?

I thought I read somewhere that he didn't know that Jerusalem had a wall when he was translating the Book of Mormon.

I know that whenever I have read anything that Joseph wrote in the earlier years, that its pretty apparent that he wasn't very literate.

I don't find Emma's portrayal of Joseph not being able to dictate a coherent letter very credible when you consider we have copies of some of Joseph's letters. Yes, the punctuation, spelling and grammar are poor, but remember these were also poor in the original BoM text and had to be significantly cleaned up for publication by Grandin at the least and perhaps Oliver or other scribes as well.  

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

yes, but do we have any evidence that Joseph Smith had most of the bible memorized?

I thought I read somewhere that he didn't know that Jerusalem had a wall when he was translating the Book of Mormon.

I know that whenever I have read anything that Joseph wrote in the earlier years, that its pretty apparent that he wasn't very literate.

Literate is not the same as knowledgeable. Oral history was much more prominent in his day, too, even simply reading aloud.

[Meadowchik]

35 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

But Meadow, can you see?

Are you sure?

• Did Joseph foretell through Ezekiel that two distinct records of the tribes of Israel would lead to the latter-day unification of God's people? 
• Did Joseph foretell through Jesus of Nazareth that there were sheep of another fold...and that Christ's message to them would lead to the latter-day unification of God's people?
• Did Joseph then twist the arms of modern, non-LDS Bible translators to cross reference between that promise in Ezekiel 37 and its counterpart in John 10...demonstrating in the Bible that another record/testament of God's people/mercies would be unfolded? (My Danish Lutheran BIble is one of many such unwitting examples.)

 

• Did Joseph inspire the several Biblical passages that point to 1844 in prophecy?
• Did Joseph convince tens of thousands of Christians and Muslims across several nations to believe that Bible timelines would be fulfilled precisely in 1844?
• And did Joseph then twist the arms of his soon-to-be-killers to ensure that the martyrdom of he and his brother precisely fulfilled those prophetic timelines?

 

• Did Joseph make up the entire notion of Nephite migrations (scatterings and gatherings)...which have their clear and precise counterparts in ancient/medieval European records (among other places), the most important of which would not even be translated into English until long after his martyrdom?

 

• Etc., etc.

Did you see what God did/does there?

What I see is the assumption that one presumably inspired work qualifies other works and deeds as inspired or revealed. It's only an assumption, though, and doesn't necessarily follow.

[churchistrue]

45 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

But Meadow, can you see?

Are you sure?

• Did Joseph foretell through Ezekiel that two distinct records of the tribes of Israel would lead to the latter-day unification of God's people? 
• Did Joseph foretell through Jesus of Nazareth that there were sheep of another fold...and that Christ's message to them would lead to the latter-day unification of God's people?
• Did Joseph then twist the arms of modern, non-LDS Bible translators to cross reference between that promise in Ezekiel 37 and its counterpart in John 10...demonstrating in the Bible that another record/testament of God's people/mercies would be unfolded? (My Danish Lutheran BIble is one of many such unwitting examples.)

 

• Did Joseph inspire the several Biblical passages that point to 1844 in prophecy?
• Did Joseph convince tens of thousands of Christians and Muslims across several nations to believe that Bible timelines would be fulfilled precisely in 1844?
• And did Joseph then twist the arms of his soon-to-be-killers to ensure that the martyrdom of he and his brother precisely fulfilled those prophetic timelines?

 

• Did Joseph make up the entire notion of Nephite migrations (scatterings and gatherings)...which have their clear and precise counterparts in ancient/medieval European records (among other places), the most important of which would not even be translated into English until long after his martyrdom?

 

• Etc., etc.

Did you see what God did/does there?

Bullet point 3. Interesting.  I never heard there were non-LDS that made correlation of those two verses.  Link?

Bullet point 4-6. I'm a little slow, but I have not idea what you're talking about here.  What's the Bible passage that prophesies Joseph's martyrdom in 1844?

 

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

If that's the question... a clear answer is that the Phoenician alphabet is known to be a reformed Egyptian. As is the Latin alphabet that we all use in this forum.

Yes but if we're expanding the meaning of reformed Egyptian that far to include Phoenician, Greek and Roman alphabets we've stretched it to the point of it meaning nothing.

Edited March 9, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'll weigh in on this since I mentioned I don't like using that term as well.  

I don't see it as productive, because of how people feel about the implications of such a term when it comes to religious convictions and people devote their entire life and orient their self worth and their moral values to these religious convictions.

If we can agree on some assumptions, like Joseph Smith dictated the BoM to scribes, then we can move forward on common ground and discuss what sources of information influenced his dictation.  Most of us agree that Joseph's culture and environment comes into play, as well as the KJV.  To what extent do these data sources get incorporated into the finished product of the BoM?  Was he copying directly from the KJV at times.  Did he attend camp meetings and incorporate narratives taught at local meetings into the BoM?  Did he incorporate elements of visions and stories in his immediate and extended family into the text?  

All of these questions can be discussed without talking about what Joseph's personal motivations for this were.  His personal motivations for why he did these things is a much harder question to evaluate, and doesn't always need to be a part of literary or historical critical discussion, I think that if we put that question to the side for this discussion we can be much more productive.  

The problem I have with that answer is that the very questions being asked are questions of motivation. If we ask why KJV sentences, why 19th century Protestant theological phrases and the like are on the plates we're asking a question of 'why' that is really a question of motives. So to exclude the key motive necessary to explain seems deeply problematic. Beyond that typically to answer the questions you ask of 'what' require first asking questions of motives. Since typically all we have are witness accounts we have to gauge the accounts in terms of distance, knowledge and motives. So to cut off motives from discussion is fundamentally to distort the process of inquiry to such an extent that questions become no longer answerable.

The fact of the matter is that Joseph's motives matter tremendously to the arguments about how the KJV ends up in the final text. I'm surprised anyone would wish to exclude it.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

yes, but do we have any evidence that Joseph Smith had most of the bible memorized?

I thought I read somewhere that he didn't know that Jerusalem had a wall when he was translating the Book of Mormon.

I know that whenever I have read anything that Joseph wrote in the earlier years, that its pretty apparent that he wasn't very literate.

I recall from reading the compilation of his sermons a very long time ago that he seemed to fluidly and effortlessly pull passages from the Bible without references I think. For whatever that's worth. 

Edited March 9, 2017 by Gray

[clarkgoble]

53 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't find Emma's portrayal of Joseph not being able to dictate a coherent letter very credible when you consider we have copies of some of Joseph's letters. Yes, the punctuation, spelling and grammar are poor, but remember these were also poor in the original BoM text and had to be significantly cleaned up for publication by Grandin at the least and perhaps Oliver or other scribes as well.  

She's undoubtedly being somewhat hyperbolic, but I don't think we can so easily dismiss her claims about Joseph's ignorance. He might not be the complete dullard some poorly made arguments portray him as. The spelling for instance in the 1829 letter is horrific as is the grammar. Even acknowledging exaggeration I'm not sure Emma's that far wrong. This is probably a great example of a pretty incoherent letter from my perspective. But the main question is really Joseph's scriptural and theological knowledge that's most relevant.

Edited March 9, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

There is a possibility that Joseph had Eidetic memory, and there is some evidence that Joseph Sr. may have had this ability to memorize broad sections of the Bible and repeat them with great accuracy.  Richard Van Wagoner talks about this in his "Natural Born Seer", but I don't have the book in front of me now.  

At a certain point the arguments for non-supernatural events requires abilities for Joseph that aren't much different than the superhuman abilities some apologist demands. Van Wagoner here is completely lacking evidence for this. He mentions other people with good memory, neglecting to ask what process they went through and no evidence Joseph Smith used the memory techniques these people use. It's not like these people just woke up and could memorize. They had to truly work at it. He raises it as a possibility because he recognizes the problem requiring this degree of memory requires for his model. The only evidence he has is a report in the Philadelphia Sun in 1831 that says "Joseph possessed a remarkably retentive memory" and that he had several chapters of the New Testament memorized. That seems considerably different from having the entire Book of Mormon memorized let alone having an eidetic memory. There's then a bunch of recollections about people other than Joseph having good memories. His argument is more or less circular.

Quote

That Joseph Jr.’ s memory was abundant enough to recall lengthy biblical passages during his dictation of the Book of Mormon seems proven in his own history. When reporting the 1823 appearance of an angel, Joseph inventoried the messenger’s remarkable scriptural citations: part of the third chapter of Malachi, all of the fourth chapter of Malachi, the eleventh chapter of Isaiah, Acts 22-23, Joel 2: 28-32, and “many other passages of Scripture.” 135 Not only was eighteen-year-old Joseph apparently able to recognize the source of each of these scriptures, but fifteen years later, when he first put the messenger’s words to paper, he was able not only to recall all scriptures cited, but their exact wording, which varies on occasion from their biblical reference.

Recognizing verses is of course different than memorizing them. I can easily tell when someone is quoting something. However the above is circular in that he's assuming good memory in order to establish Joseph recalled the angel's statements accurately in order to prove good memory. Isn't it just as likely Joseph had a vague memory of what happened and reconstructed the angel's statements based upon later study? Thereby needing no amazing memory feats?

I have an absolutely horrible memory yet to drive a car on my mission I had to memorize pretty long passages and 100 scriptures. I managed but it took considerable effort. (I also memorized a few poems like Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came) Having things memorized might impress but isn't the same as having a good memory. And it certainly isn't the same as memorizing a rather large tome.

Edited March 9, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

yes, but do we have any evidence that Joseph Smith had most of the bible memorized?

I thought I read somewhere that he didn't know that Jerusalem had a wall when he was translating the Book of Mormon.

I know that whenever I have read anything that Joseph wrote in the earlier years, that its pretty apparent that he wasn't very literate.

There is a difference between spoken language and written language.  Some are very good at one, not so much the other (obvious examples are stutterers and dyslexics).  Myself, I am secure with writing having a massive vocabulary due to obsessive reading in younger days and decent spelling (usually perfect when I have time to look words up) and relatively decent ability to organize thoughts, but much more hesitant in speaking both for shyness and because my reading has given me vocabulary I don't trust I know how to pronounce (tinnitus is my current angst word, I end up saying it three different ways when  talking to my doctor), plus I get easily distracted with other thoughts and end up forgetting if I made my point or even what it was at times.

[notHagoth7]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

Bullet point 3. Interesting.  I never heard there were non-LDS that made correlation of those two verses.  Link?

If I return to where my old Danish Bible is, and and if I have smartphone access restored then, I'll gladly upload an image of the cross reference(s) regarding John and Ezekiel.

(I believe I've seen similar footnotes in other non-LDS reference/study BIbles - although it's not something I actively look for.)

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

Bullet point 4-6. I'm a little slow, but I have not idea what you're talking about here.  What's the Bible passage that prophesies Joseph's martyrdom in 1844?

There are several such passages. For a primer on one of them from Daniel/Gabriel...

Thoughts?

Edited March 10, 2017 by notHagoth7

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

I think we give too much credence to the claim of latter-day linguists that phrases and clauses dropping out of fashion somehow applied to *every* corner where that language was spoken. So I believe Joseph and his neighbors/kin may well have used phrases that had long passed out of mainstream use.

Backwoods areas are often more conservative, and much slower to change than the mainstream. Linguistic marshlands, where variety survives for generations.

But, then again, the linguists may have done their homework. And again, what were the "backwoods" areas of which you are speaking? Sharon, Vermont where Joseph was born? Or Palmyra? Neither would seem to fit the bill as backwoods. Were either of those areas homogenous in their makeup, with families coming from pretty much the same area of England during the fifteen and/or sixteen hundreds? Were those areas isolated and with little intercourse with others areas? 

Do the documents authored by members of the family contain those types of phrases that the linguists assert had fallen out of use? I do not think most linguists would agree that the written word changes slower than the spoken dialect. Therefore it should be a fairly simple matter for a person who wishes to actually refute what Stanford Carmack is asserting by poring through mundane texts (letter, journals etc.) produced by people living in the areas where Joseph was raised and lived to see if there is lot of EmodE similar to phrases in the Book of Mormon.

There is no one alternative explanation put forward by anyone that provides plausible explanations how the Book of Mormon was produced. I am good with Joseph's explanation that it was produced  by the power and inspiration of God.

 

Glenn

[notHagoth7]

28 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

But, then again, the linguists may have done their homework.

I'm AOK if they are right and I am wrong on such a matter.  

28 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I do not think most linguists would agree that the written word changes slower than the spoken dialect.

? I wasn't asserting such. On the contrary, actually. I simply meant that changes in language use (especially spoken) in nooks and crannies (including households) don't always align with more mainstream changes/samplings. Case in point was my experience mentioned earlier in SonderJylland, which involved a blend of language traditions - most of which could be understood, but pockets of which my native companion couldn't fathom a single word. None of which you would likely find in a newspaper or a book. So the absence of evidence (fx. EmodE or any other language sampling) isn't always evidence of absence.

28 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Therefore it should be a fairly simple matter for a person who wishes to actually refute what Stanford Carmack is asserting by poring through mundane texts (letter, journals etc.) produced by people living in the areas where Joseph was raised and lived to see if there is lot of EmodE similar to phrases in the Book of Mormon.

Not interested in refuting/overturning. Simply in offering a counterpoint for consideration. There wouldn't have to be a lot of written evidence. Or any - for such a refutation. Because most of us speak [and text] in a style somewhat less formal than the normal written word. And how would one pour through the spoken word of previous generations...without an actual glimpse back in time? Fair 'nuf?

28 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

...I am good with Joseph's explanation that [the Book of Mormon] was produced  by the power and inspiration of God.

Agreed. Completely.

Edited March 10, 2017 by notHagoth7

[Benjamin McGuire]

16 hours ago, churchistrue said:

There are no adequate quantitative methods to use to statistically evaluate these things and say with confidence that A is a valid parallel but B is not.

I think that your use of "parallel" is a bit broad here - because in some circumstances, we do have adequate methods to evaluate things and say that A is a valid parallel, but B is not. That essay of mine on parallelomania describes different ways to approach it, but in the examples I give, I illustrate how this can be done with some certainty. And when we deal with texts in particular, we can have some degree of certainty when Text B is reliant on Text A (even if we may not know the exact genealogy of that relationship). This is particularly true when we engage with the more complex relationships (quotation, reinscription, and so on). Our biggest struggle tends to be over words themselves - because you can almost never isolate a word to a particular document. This is natural because for wors to be meaningful, they have to have a broad awareness within a community. And usually when we create new words we usually tend to do so in a way that helps provide clues to meaning and intention.

Because of this, words and short phrases are universally considered the weakest sorts of evidence for textual parallels. The only way to recover these as useful indicators of parallels is to provide a larger context - either by introducing other elements to the parallel (structure, interpretation, and so on), or by trying to greatly narrow the context of those words - by arguing for a technical usage that only occurs within a specific context. For the Book of Mormon, one of those arguments has consistently been over the idea of "secret combinations" as an indicator for freemasonry as an influence. The problem has always been that there is no narrow technical use for this term. As I describe it in my essay:

Quote

 

Grunder attempts to bolster Vogel’s arguments by suggesting that to him, “the objections by early 1830 Masons who were opposed to applying the term, ‘all secret combinations’ exclusively to Freemasonry and other secret fraternal societies—and many antimasons’ insistence that ‘all secret combinations’ did refer exclusively to such groups, by that time and in such context—says much” (2008, p. 130). He insists that this usage of the phrase is exclusive to this context.

...

There is a severe problem with Grunder’s comparison here. If we follow Harold Love’s advice, we find hundreds of examples of the use of this phrase “secret combination.” Some of them occur before the publication of the Book of Mormon, some of them occur after, and some of them are contemporary. On the whole, only a minority of these instances relate to freemasonry. So while there may be a distinct evolution of the term chauvinism, with the phrase secret combinations we have the same term being used repeatedly to refer to different things and different groups. The term doesn’t evolve as Grunder’s claim requires. It gets applied and reapplied to these different organizations (often simultaneously when the time period is appropriate) because the meaning of the phrase doesn’t change (as it did with the example that Grunder provides).

 

In the context of your remarks, the trouble is distinguishing between a technical usage that might be called "19th century protestant language" and a usage within 19th century Protestantism that is determined by an already existing meaning that is being turned or adopted in protestant thought. If it is the later issue and not the former issue, then you cannot rely simply on a language parallel as being meaningful or significant in any way. Within religious movements in particular, there is a long identified trend at borrowing religious language and using it to create something new within a religious tradition. But religions do this because it is simply how language works more generally.

Quote

I think the case is overwhelming that some 19th century language and ideas came into the BOM through the mind and environment of Joseph.

I think this is likely true. But, you have to understand that this is a common feature of all translations (particularly good translations). And the question remains (as I ask it in the FairMormon conference presentation), is this a result of Joseph Smith as translator? Or is it a result of Joseph Smith as a representative of the narrative audience. The interesting part of this is that whether it comes through the mind of Joseph Smith, or is translated so that Joseph Smith will understand it, this still shoots down the idea of an 16th or 17th century translator producing a good translation a couple of hundred years before Joseph Smith arrives.

Quote

We see allusions to the same NT verses and phrases and logic that modern theologians are using to make their case.  ie for need for infinite atonment in the case I illustrate.

On the other hand, we run into other problems that create interesting challenges. Nephi sometimes sounds an awful lot like Plato from his Phaedrus. When Jacob quotes from Psalm 95, he certainly doesn't apply it to his own context in a way that imitates the New Testament interpretation. And Jacob's discussion on polygamy would be right at home in the debates at the time of Rabbi Gershom in the Middle Ages. Perhaps on some level we run into the problem that the language of the translation becomes as much a mirror as anything else. And perhaps we read into it what we want to read into it.

Ben McGuire

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The problem I have with that answer is that the very questions being asked are questions of motivation. If we ask why KJV sentences, why 19th century Protestant theological phrases and the like are on the plates we're asking a question of 'why' that is really a question of motives. So to exclude the key motive necessary to explain seems deeply problematic. Beyond that typically to answer the questions you ask of 'what' require first asking questions of motives. Since typically all we have are witness accounts we have to gauge the accounts in terms of distance, knowledge and motives. So to cut off motives from discussion is fundamentally to distort the process of inquiry to such an extent that questions become no longer answerable.

The fact of the matter is that Joseph's motives matter tremendously to the arguments about how the KJV ends up in the final text. I'm surprised anyone would wish to exclude it.

Well, I disagree, I think we can have very good discussions about where the content is coming from without discussing motives or why.  I'm not saying those discussions can't be had, and aren't worthy of consideration, but I do think that they can be a distraction from a healthy discussion about what content made its way to the BoM text, and where did it come from, without even getting to the "why" of it all.  

Also, we can't know what was on the plates anyway, so your comment about why 19th century phrases end up on the plates, isn't a question we can answer because we have no access to the plates.  The better question is what 19th century content do we have in the BoM text, and what are the sources of the content that Joseph may have borrowed from.  None of that discussion has to get into why he was borrowing from these sources or whether he was borrowing conscientiously or not, or whether he was deliberately intending to deceive people or whether God inspired him to borrow this content.  I think setting those questions to the side makes for a much less charged and more productive discussion. 

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

She's undoubtedly being somewhat hyperbolic, but I don't think we can so easily dismiss her claims about Joseph's ignorance. He might not be the complete dullard some poorly made arguments portray him as. The spelling for instance in the 1829 letter is horrific as is the grammar. Even acknowledging exaggeration I'm not sure Emma's that far wrong. This is probably a great example of a pretty incoherent letter from my perspective. But the main question is really Joseph's scriptural and theological knowledge that's most relevant.

Compare grammar from the early BoM text "And it came to pass that as Ammon and Lamoni was a journeying thither"  (Alma 20:8)

Jonathan Ellis wrote a very nice post on this subject last year I invite you to consider.  

https://medium.com/@jellistx/fact-checking-mormon-history-could-joseph-smith-have-authored-the-book-of-mormon-8b5a29a6f519#.gr4u1mk3y

In the post he shows a comparison of the original 1829 letter and what a cleaned up version (spelling, punctuation and grammar) would look like.  Remember that Joseph had Oliver and Grandin to clean up the original BoM dictation in a similar way.  

Original Letter

Quote

Respected sir I would in form you that I arrived at home on sunday morning the 4th. after having a prosperous journy, and found all well the people are all friendly to <us> except a few who are in opposition to evry thing unless it is some thing that is axactly like themselves and two of our most formadable persacutors are now under censure and are cited to a trial in the church for crimes which if true are worse than all the Gold Book business. we do not rejoice in the affliction of our enimies but we shall be glad to have truth prevail there begins to be a great call for our books in this country the minds of the people are very much excited when they find that there is a copy right obtained and that there is really books about to be printed…

Cleaned up letter

Quote

Respected sir,

I would inform you that I arrived at home on Sunday morning the 4th after having a prosperous journey, and found all well. The people are all friendly to us, except a few — who are in opposition to every thing unless it is something that is exactly like themselves.

Two of our most formidable persecutors are now under censure, and are cited to a trial in the church for crimes, which if true are worse than all the Gold Book business. We do not rejoice in the affliction of our enemies, but we shall be glad to have truth prevail.

There begins to be a great call for our books in this country. The minds of the people are very much excited when they find that there is a copyright obtained and that there are really books about to be printed.

 

[clarkgoble]

25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Also, we can't know what was on the plates anyway, so your comment about why 19th century phrases end up on the plates, isn't a question we can answer because we have no access to the plates.  The better question is what 19th century content do we have in the BoM text, and what are the sources of the content that Joseph may have borrowed from.  None of that discussion has to get into why he was borrowing from these sources or whether he was borrowing conscientiously or not, or whether he was deliberately intending to deceive people or whether God inspired him to borrow this content.  I think setting those questions to the side makes for a much less charged and more productive discussion. 

Why they end up on a translation of the plate. Again, since we don't have the plate the motives with regards to the production matter even more. 

Quote

In the post he shows a comparison of the original 1829 letter and what a cleaned up version (spelling, punctuation and grammar) would look like.  Remember that Joseph had Oliver and Grandin to clean up the original BoM dictation in a similar way.  

That's still not a well written letter, even acknowledging differing styles in the 19th century from today. The other points in the link you gave I fully agree with though. It's a late memory and there are reasons for her to say what she says (motives, I might add -- again proving themselves significant)

Edited March 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

At a certain point the arguments for non-supernatural events requires abilities for Joseph that aren't much different than the superhuman abilities some apologist demands. Van Wagoner here is completely lacking evidence for this. He mentions other people with good memory, neglecting to ask what process they went through and no evidence Joseph Smith used the memory techniques these people use. It's not like these people just woke up and could memorize. They had to truly work at it. He raises it as a possibility because he recognizes the problem requiring this degree of memory requires for his model. The only evidence he has is a report in the Philadelphia Sun in 1831 that says "Joseph possessed a remarkably retentive memory" and that he had several chapters of the New Testament memorized. That seems considerably different from having the entire Book of Mormon memorized let alone having an eidetic memory. There's then a bunch of recollections about people other than Joseph having good memories. His argument is more or less circular.

I'm glad you've read the book, I think its a wonderfully written and compelling book on Joseph Smith.  The author made me consider this idea of extremely good memory as an option that may explain the evidence we have of Joseph being able to repeat things with such intricate detail.  I don't think Van Wagoner ever claims that his evidence is proof positive from what I recall he offers this as a plausible explanation that might work.  We are lacking a lot of evidence on all sides to explain how the BoM was created, so I'm not sure why you'd be so critical of this possible explanation over other ones where we may have just as scant evidence.  

16 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Recognizing verses is of course different than memorizing them. I can easily tell when someone is quoting something. However the above is circular in that he's assuming good memory in order to establish Joseph recalled the angel's statements accurately in order to prove good memory. Isn't it just as likely Joseph had a vague memory of what happened and reconstructed the angel's statements based upon later study? Thereby needing no amazing memory feats?

I have an absolutely horrible memory yet to drive a car on my mission I had to memorize pretty long passages and 100 scriptures. I managed but it took considerable effort. (I also memorized a few poems like Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came) Having things memorized might impress but isn't the same as having a good memory. And it certainly isn't the same as memorizing a rather large tome.

Joseph never claimed to be reconstructing what the angel said based on vague recollections later.  The 1838/39 history is written as if those statements are quotes from his original meeting with the angel.  There are other evidences that Joseph may have had a very detailed memory, I'm thinking of the polygamy revelation he said that he didn't need to use a seer stone because he had the entire revelation memorized.  I don't think you should so easily dismiss the possibility that Joseph had memory skills that were better than the average person and perhaps even rare and extraordinary skills.