19th century Protestant language in Book of Mormon

[clarkgoble]

Quote

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.  

I don't think you can tell from what was written why Joseph thought that nor on what basis. I don't think you can or should presume from the fact it's written as history that Joseph had memorized it. If you look at Joseph's historical writings in general they are just written as if they happened regardless of who is writing it (scribes, other accounts) or regardless of what basis (later memories, scribal records, etc.) In contemporary history we expect more focus on arguments and sources. The style Joseph was working on (well before modern conceptions of historiography) just was to write what happened without appeal to why you conclude it (or to let reader in on what conclusions are stronger than others)

I'm not dismissing Joseph had good memory skills. I think we have to acknowledge it as a possibility. I'm merely pointing out the arguments for it aren't exactly good. They end up coming down to "my model requires that." I don't have a problem with that since of course the apologists making models do the same thing as I noted in the first line. Just that typically that's not how people appealing to this portray their models.

Let's just be clear that saying Joseph had eidetic memory is a big leap. At least as big a leap as "terms like horses don't refer to horses" and with similar styles of argument.

Edited March 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

51 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think you can tell from what was written why Joseph thought that nor on what basis. I don't think you can or should presume from the fact it's written as history that Joseph had memorized it. If you look at Joseph's historical writings in general they are just written as if they happened regardless of who is writing it (scribes, other accounts) or regardless of what basis (later memories, scribal records, etc.) In contemporary history we expect more focus on arguments and sources. The style Joseph was working on (well before modern conceptions of historiography) just was to write what happened without appeal to why you conclude it (or to let reader in on what conclusions are stronger than others)

I'm not dismissing Joseph had good memory skills. I think we have to acknowledge it as a possibility. I'm merely pointing out the arguments for it aren't exactly good. They end up coming down to "my model requires that." I don't have a problem with that since of course the apologists making models do the same thing as I noted in the first line. Just that typically that's not how people appealing to this portray their models.

Let's just be clear that saying Joseph had eidetic memory is a big leap. At least as big a leap as "terms like horses don't refer to horses" and with similar styles of argument.

Very good points, thanks for making me think.  I agree that the writings all have that style regardless who wrote them, or how many times they were edited or changed over time.  They certainly weren't accurate representations of the history.  I'm open to the idea that Joseph had very good memory skills and that this partially explains some of the evidence, but personally I don't find that explanation truly satisfying.  

I tend to think that he must have had a copy of the KJV open when dictating the BoM, I think that is much more likely a scenario than him memorizing passages and then repeating them with great accuracy.  

[Gray]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Very good points, thanks for making me think.  I agree that the writings all have that style regardless who wrote them, or how many times they were edited or changed over time.  They certainly weren't accurate representations of the history.  I'm open to the idea that Joseph had very good memory skills and that this partially explains some of the evidence, but personally I don't find that explanation truly satisfying.  

I tend to think that he must have had a copy of the KJV open when dictating the BoM, I think that is much more likely a scenario than him memorizing passages and then repeating them with great accuracy.  

That doesn't jibe with witness statements. Of course eye witness testimony is weaker than other forms of evidence. We know the BOM is KJV dependent. So maybe that is stronger evidence than witness testimony to the contrary. Hard to say without knowing more about Joseph Smith's memory, and that's hard to demonstrate conclusively too. 

[clarkgoble]

40 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I tend to think that he must have had a copy of the KJV open when dictating the BoM, I think that is much more likely a scenario than him memorizing passages and then repeating them with great accuracy.  

This again gets to why I think the being clear about the fraud model is important though. If the text is a fraud and was pre-written then there's no need to have the KJV open since he'd have to either have hidden the text of the Book of Mormon he was 'translating' that day or have it memorized. If you have to have all the entire text of the Book of Mormon memorized adding a bit of the KJV extended quotations is nothing. The KJV would merely be a prop like (under the fraud model) the fake plates. But the fraud would be more compelling if he never uses the KJV text as a prop. The only real situation where having an open KJV makes sense is the inspiration model or maybe the delusion model although even there it doesn't make as much sense for reasons I can go into if you want. 

Edited March 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

59 minutes ago, Gray said:

That doesn't jibe with witness statements. Of course eye witness testimony is weaker than other forms of evidence. We know the BOM is KJV dependent. So maybe that is stronger evidence than witness testimony to the contrary. Hard to say without knowing more about Joseph Smith's memory, and that's hard to demonstrate conclusively too. 

I do feel like the KJV dependency evidence in the text is stronger than the late witness testimony in this case.  It is hard to say with certainty, I agree with you there.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

This again gets to why I think the being clear about the fraud model is important though. If the text is a fraud and was pre-written

I don't agree that a pre-written text means its a fraud.  There are multiple kinds of models that have been discussed about what was happening ranging from completely inspired by God to delusional, to pious fraud, to malicious fraud.  All along that spectrum, I think you could say that the text was pre-written and apply it to any of those models.  I don't think a pre-written text = fraud.

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

no need to have the KJV open since he'd have to either have hidden the text of the Book of Mormon he was 'translating' that day or have it memorized.

Why would he have had to hide the text of the BoM he was translating necessarily?  What if the scribes were totally comfortable with him consulting a copy of the KJV as part of the dictation process.  

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The only real situation where having an open KJV makes sense is the inspiration model or maybe the delusion model although even there it doesn't make as much sense for reasons I can go into if you want. 

Maybe you can explain why you think having an open KJV is substantially more difficult to apply to some models than others.  

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't agree that a pre-written text means its a fraud.  There are multiple kinds of models that have been discussed about what was happening ranging from completely inspired by God to delusional, to pious fraud, to malicious fraud.  All along that spectrum, I think you could say that the text was pre-written and apply it to any of those models.  I don't think a pre-written text = fraud.

Please explain a model in which a pre-written text Joseph hid from others isn't fraud. I can't see it.

Quote

Why would he have had to hide the text of the BoM he was translating necessarily?  What if the scribes were totally comfortable with him consulting a copy of the KJV as part of the dictation process.  

It'd be great. The problem is that the scribes all say he didn't consult a KJV. I honestly have no problem whether he did or didn't. To me the key issue is the unambiguous quotations from the KJV. I honestly just don't see the point of why he'd have to consult a KJV which is why few people assert he did.

Quote

Maybe you can explain why you think having an open KJV is substantially more difficult to apply to some models than others.  

For the fraud model we either have (1) Joseph memorizing the text of the Book of Mormon (2) having hidden copies of the pre-written text of the Book of Mormon or (3) made the Book of Mormon up as he went.

(3) is unlikely, although it can't be discounted entirely, because of places where the text quotes itself, references itself in complex ways and the like. It seems unlikely a fraudulent fictious story could be written in the form it was and generated a sentence by sentence with no corrections. That leaves for most people just models (1) or (2)

For (1) the text is all written and has to be memorized. That would include the KJV passages. (Most critics who adopt this model argue that memory is why there are variants from the text of the KJV although as you noted earlier this might be a problem for Metcalf's wherefore/therefore model -- although I think we can just say that distinction happened in composition and Joseph memorized things correctly) The point is there is no need for a KJV except as a prop and there's no need for a KJV prop that I can see. 

For (2) again there's no need to consult the KJV since he has the text all written out including the KJV quotations.

So for the fraud model what need does having a KJV open fulfill?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Please explain a model in which a pre-written text Joseph hid from others isn't fraud. I can't see it.

We don't have any evidence either way, whether someone would consider a pre-written text a fraud or not.  Why would Joseph have had to hide it, I just don't think the assumption you're bringing to this fraud idea is necessary.  Why would a scribe have to automatically think fraud if Joseph brought something pre-written to the dictation table?  Couldn't Joseph have been conversing with the angel or had a dream/vision and written his ideas down.  Why the assumption of fraud automatically, I just don't see it.  

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

It'd be great. The problem is that the scribes all say he didn't consult a KJV. I honestly have no problem whether he did or didn't. To me the key issue is the unambiguous quotations from the KJV. I honestly just don't see the point of why he'd have to consult a KJV which is why few people assert he did.

No the scribes didn't all say that Joseph didn't consult a KJV, Emma is the only scribe that specifically said this with her late recollection and David Whitmer wasn't a scribe.  Unless I'm forgetting others that made this assertion?  

Can you explain your key issue point more, I'm not following you.  Wouldn't an unambiguous quote from the KJV be evidence that he must have consulted the KJV text, especially if his memory wasn't excellent, how else would he be able to accurately reproduce the KJV language?  

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

For the fraud model we either have (1) Joseph memorizing the text of the Book of Mormon

Why memorization of the text, why not just have the basics of the story figured out ahead of time, consider that he was telling stories to his family and had years to work the narratives out in advance. 

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

(2) having hidden copies of the pre-written text of the Book of Mormon

This one seems less likely to me, that he was hiding copies of a pre-written text.  Especially with so many different scribes having worked on the dictation process over time.  I think it more likely that if he did bring pre-written text to any of the dictation sessions that he had it out in the open and consulted the text without any efforts to hide what he was doing.  

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

(3) made the Book of Mormon up as he went.

(3) is unlikely, although it can't be discounted entirely, because of places where the text quotes itself, references itself in complex ways and the like. It seems unlikely a fraudulent fictious story could be written in the form it was and generated a sentence by sentence with no corrections.

When the text quotes itself, I think it possible that they stopped and referred back to earlier written text, but I'd love to see some analysis that has been done where the text quotes or paraphrases itself.  Do you know of any essays written on this subject.  What was the accuracy of those quotes, etc.  And ugh, wish you wouldn't assume that this kind of writing makes the text fraudulent/fictitious.  Consider this quote by Brigham Young, why couldn't we think the process in these terms:

Quote

When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities.... Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings.

The text was dictated by Joseph Smith, we can be pretty sure that this is an accurate statement.  How he did it, whether he did it all from memory, or whether he was consulting pre-written text is an open question we don't have the answer to.  I still don't believe that any of these scenarios, memorized text, pre-written text or a mixture of the two, have to automatically assume fraud on his part, looking at Brigham's quote and thinking about how scripture is created, canonized, evolved, proof texted, etc. over the years, scripture is whatever a group of people call scripture.  

Edited March 10, 2017 by hope_for_things

[clarkgoble]

56 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

We don't have any evidence either way, whether someone would consider a pre-written text a fraud or not.

Come on. You don't honestly believe that. 

Quote

Why would a scribe have to automatically think fraud if Joseph brought something pre-written to the dictation table?  Couldn't Joseph have been conversing with the angel or had a dream/vision and written his ideas down.  Why the assumption of fraud automatically, I just don't see it.

Really? People would assume fraud because he claimed he was translating with either the seer stone or the Urim & Thummim. 

Certainly Joseph could have said he was receiving the text from an angel or that he'd received the translation already. But then what is the point of the dictating to the scribe and claiming to read it on the seer stone? Either the scribes are in on the fraud or forgot everything he claimed about what happened.

The reason pretty well every person would assume it was fraud is because the entire method he was presenting as the method of translating wasn't actually doing anything.

Quote

Can you explain your key issue point more, I'm not following you.  

I'm honestly at a loss of what to say more. I'm just having a terribly difficult time seeing how you aren't seeing these things as issues. Probably not much more I could say if you honestly don't have a problem with someone bringing a sheet of paper with the text he is planning to purport to translate. It's exactly the same reason that if I show up to an exam with all the answers people will assume I'm cheating. 

Quote

No the scribes didn't all say that Joseph didn't consult a KJV, Emma is the only scribe that specifically said this with her late recollection and David Whitmer wasn't a scribe.  Unless I'm forgetting others that made this assertion?  

None of the scribes mention him using it and Emma says he didn't use it. 

Quote

Why memorization of the text, why not just have the basics of the story figured out ahead of time, consider that he was telling stories to his family and had years to work the narratives out in advance. 

Because of the details of reference. Effectively you are just espousing the "he made it up as he went" theory, which I think most people assume had some vague idea of plotline. That's fine. I'm not saying that theory isn't defensible. But it has its own problems.

Quote

When the text quotes itself, I think it possible that they stopped and referred back to earlier written text

Again though that'd look pretty suspicious to the scribes, wouldn't it? (Maybe you don't think that, but I certainly think it'd be ridiculously suspicious)

Quote

 but I'd love to see some analysis that has been done where the text quotes or paraphrases itself.  Do you know of any essays written on this subject.

I don't know of a single paper that collects everything. (I'm sure there are some - just that I don't know of one off the top of my head and my google fu is failing me) Some examples I can think of are things like Alma 36:22 quoting 1 Nephi 1:8. I think the occasional claim of apologists that the book is too complex to have been written by Joseph Smith is overstated. However I do find it pretty implausible that he could come up with it as he 'translated it' even with a basic geographic scheme and plot pre-written.

 

Edited March 11, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

On 3/10/2017 at 4:58 PM, clarkgoble said:

Come on. You don't honestly believe that. 

Really? People would assume fraud because he claimed he was translating with either the seer stone or the Urim & Thummim. 

Certainly Joseph could have said he was receiving the text from an angel or that he'd received the translation already. But then what is the point of the dictating to the scribe and claiming to read it on the seer stone? Either the scribes are in on the fraud or forgot everything he claimed about what happened.

The reason pretty well every person would assume it was fraud is because the entire method he was presenting as the method of translating wasn't actually doing anything.

I think you're suffering from presentism, while I'm trying to explore other possibilities.  Lets think about the Oliver Cowdery experience.  He meets Joseph and immediately begins to be his scribe.  We don't know the exact dates of the April 1829 revelations to Oliver about translation, but we do know that he was promised that he had the gift to translate like Joseph in one revelation, also that he had the gift of working with a diving Rod.  After some apparently unsuccessful attempts he is told that the timing isn't right and that he didn't study it out in his mind enough, that he took no thought save it was to ask.  

Just speculating about this, but perhaps this means that Oliver wasn't being creative enough, that he wasn't envisioning a narrative like Joseph did and instead of creatively coming up with the story and then seeking confirmation from God about that story, that Oliver was expecting the story to just be given to him from God with little creative efforts on his part.  I don't know, just speculating.  

Also, wondering where any of this is prohibiting Oliver or Joseph from writing down working notes, and who's to say that Joseph wasn't working from written notes of some kind.  We know that as soon as Oliver shows up, that the whole BoM dictation project goes very quickly compared to other times in the prior years.  They certainly made a good team, and while we have no specific evidence of pre-written notes I'm not so willing to rule it out as a possibility just because you think that its evidence of fraud, when we have no reason to believe that Oliver would have considered that method of translation a fraudulent one.  

We also don't know what methods Oliver used as they experimented with him translating.  Did he use a seer stone in a hat like Joseph, did he try using his diving rods, did he write things down on paper, did he try to have a vision, we just don't know all the methods they tried.  God had promised he could translate yet they weren't successful.  Remember that Oliver was commissioned (by revelation) a few months later to establish the church, and he received a revelation in the Articles of the Church, which is written in first person revelatory voice similar to Joseph's revelations. Oliver also had a very hard time when Joseph wanted to change some of the wording of his revelation later on.  

On 3/10/2017 at 4:58 PM, clarkgoble said:

I don't know of a single paper that collects everything. (I'm sure there are some - just that I don't know of one off the top of my head and my google fu is failing me) Some examples I can think of are things like Alma 36:22 quoting 1 Nephi 1:8. I think the occasional claim of apologists that the book is too complex to have been written by Joseph Smith is overstated. However I do find it pretty implausible that he could come up with it as he 'translated it' even with a basic geographic scheme and plot pre-written.

More of these cross references could be an interesting study, and perhaps evidence that they were referring to earlier sections of already dictated text, in this case with Mosian priority, he might have been referring to notes of the Lehi account, or just from memory when dictating the Alma story and referring back to Lehi.  

[clarkgoble]

I confess I don't see the presentism. Likewise I just don't see how Joseph using notes about what he'd be translating would be seen as anything other than potential fraud. The fact that it would be seen by fraud is indicated by why Lucy sees fit to emphasize there were no other resources. She's indicating that because of claims of fraud by the many anti-Mormons that raised that issue. 

 

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I confess I don't see the presentism. Likewise I just don't see how Joseph using notes about what he'd be translating would be seen as anything other than potential fraud. The fact that it would be seen by fraud is indicated by why Lucy sees fit to emphasize there were no other resources. She's indicating that because of claims of fraud by the many anti-Mormons that raised that issue. 

I'm guessing you mean Emma rather than Lucy.  The presentism is your view that written notes = fraud, when there isn't any evidence that Oliver or Joseph would have thought it was Fraud or even have a problem with it.  

Also, if you consider the later BoA project with all the working Alphabets and you also consider that there is some evidence they were working on a similar thing when Martin was involved in the BoM, why rule out the possibility of notes and pre-written material.  

Edited March 13, 2017 by hope_for_things

[clarkgoble]

Whoops, yeah Emma. It's not a presentist argument because this isn't a position that people have really changed views on as witnessed by the attacks on the Book of Mormon as a fraud. It's not presentist to assume Oliver or Joseph would have the same views on fraud that their contemporaries had. To argue they didn't certainly requires the burden of proof.

The GAEL is different of course, although I do agree that was likely used with the Kinderhook plates and that parts of it were worked on prior to the Book of Abraham translation (but after the papyri was bought I believe). I confess I don't see how that's relevant since first it's not akin to having extensive notes for what Joseph was going to translate and second it's not at all clear it was used for the translation of the Book of Abraham. I think the evidence is much stronger that it was expanded after the translation was made.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Whoops, yeah Emma. It's not a presentist argument because this isn't a position that people have really changed views on as witnessed by the attacks on the Book of Mormon as a fraud. It's not presentist to assume Oliver or Joseph would have the same views on fraud that their contemporaries had. To argue they didn't certainly requires the burden of proof.

We'll probably just differ on this I guess.  The reason I think its presentism on your part is you're assuming that having pre-written text would automatically be considered fraud, and I believe this is because you're informed by your present culture and defining what you consider fraud and applying that definition where it wouldn't necessarily fit (think about Joseph's treasure digging, do you think he considered what he was doing a fraud?)   I haven't seen any compelling reasons to believe that Joseph or Oliver would have the same views as their peers with respect to fraud, remember how many contemporaries consider scrying with a stone in a hat to be fraudulent

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

The GAEL is different of course, although I do agree that was likely used with the Kinderhook plates and that parts of it were worked on prior to the Book of Abraham translation (but after the papyri was bought I believe). I confess I don't see how that's relevant since first it's not akin to having extensive notes for what Joseph was going to translate and second it's not at all clear it was used for the translation of the Book of Abraham. I think the evidence is much stronger that it was expanded after the translation was made.

Yes the GAEL is different, but there is evidence that Joseph was working on a BoM alphabet as well with the Anthon transcript, and some of the work being done on the Adamic language as well, there are some interesting clues about written language translation in the early church. 

Also as for the BoA which has been discussed at length on other threads, the evidence that the GAEL was used for the translation project of the BoA is very solid from both believing Mormon scholars like Brian Hauglid and from external experts like Ritner.  

[clarkgoble]

I'll confess to not having kept up with all the Abraham stuff the last decade. What's the argument for GAEL being used in the BoA translation? That's a new one to me.

To the other point I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think the default position is to assume ones peers have the same view they have. Even if they don't, that needs be established in cases like this. That is the burden of proof is on those saying Joseph's associates would have had a different reaction. I can but say it seemed a concern to many people. Also Joseph at that point wasn't an established figure, unlike with the BoA where he already had a lot of stuff under his belt and a degree of trust for many people. 

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'll confess to not having kept up with all the Abraham stuff the last decade. What's the argument for GAEL being used in the BoA translation? That's a new one to me.

To the other point I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think the default position is to assume ones peers have the same view they have. Even if they don't, that needs be established in cases like this. That is the burden of proof is on those saying Joseph's associates would have had a different reaction. I can but say it seemed a concern to many people. Also Joseph at that point wasn't an established figure, unlike with the BoA where he already had a lot of stuff under his belt and a degree of trust for many people. 

For an interesting thread on BoA, read this one and read Ritner's short essay response to the gospel topics essay on the subject.  Also, if you're interested Brian Haughlid (BYU professor and BoA expert) has done a couple interviews on podcasts in recent years as well.  

 

[clarkgoble]

The Ritner response is one of the few things I've read of late. He doesn't really address the GAEL issue you raised though. Most of the points he makes are the ones that people had been making with GAEL back in the 90's.

[notHagoth7]

On 3/9/2017 at 3:45 PM, churchistrue said:

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?

Although I don't yet have restored access to a smartphone, a further tidbit...or three.

I happened to be reviewing Rev 11 in my NIV earlier this week...a chapter which includes a prophetic timeline that refers to the year of Joseph's/Hyrum's martyrdom.

Like the earlier-mentioned Danish-Lutheran-Bible referencing Ezekiel 37 from John 10 (other sheep), my NIV happens to cross reference the two witnesses of Rev 11 (which points to 1844 martyrdom) to Ezekiel 37.

So whether: 

• we're talking Jesus' promised visit to other sheep (for all sheep to eventually become one united fold)... 
• ...or John's testimony elsewhere in Revelation 11,

...both passages from John reference Ezekiel 37....as acknowledged by non-LDS BIble publishers.

In short: other sheep = two sticks = 1844 (martyrdom).

1. By this.
2. No greater love.
3. 1844. "Their innocent blood...[with the innocent blood of all the martyrs under the altar that John saw]...is a witness to the truth of the everlasting gospel that all the world cannot impeach; and...is an ambassador for the religion of Jesus Christ that will touch the hearts of honest men among all nations...."
4. "'And now I … bid farewell unto the Gentiles; yea, and also unto my brethren whom I love, until we shall meet before the judgment-seat of Christ, where all men shall know that my garments are not spotted with your blood.' The testators are now dead, and their testament is in force."

Edited March 17, 2017 by notHagoth7

[HappyJackWagon]

Interesting podcast about 19th century milieu that influenced the Book of Mormon, including the protestant and political language of the day. http://www.athoughtfulfaith.org/the-book-of-mormon-as-a-19th-century-political-commentary-christopher-c-smith/