New Archaeological Tool Could Find Zarahemla...it's Only a Matter of Time

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Your argument that God has to care about all the words used in the BOM equally, and can't care about spiritually significant words more, makes no sense.

Given the purpose of the BoM, words matter very much.  For example, in Moroni's promise in Moroni chapter 10, how do you know the Holy Ghost is not mistaken for something else?  If horse could mean tapir, then ghost could mean the following: shadow, fandom, demon, alien, zombie, poltergeist, etc.  

You can't have it both ways and say it doesn't matter if certain words might have a different underlying meaning without affecting all words throughout the book.  

 

Edited March 18, 2017 by Ouagadougou

[PeterPear]

8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

1. The search in Mesoamerica is in its infancy.

2. Even if found how could you distinguish them from other ruins, by satellite pictures?

"The search in Mesoamerica is in its infancy."

 Must be really tough to find in Dr. Sorenson's stated and limited 500 x 200 mile area.

Maybe the new technology will find the Plains of Nephihah and the plains near the city of Mulek (Alma 52 & 62) and the Plains of Heshlon and the Plains of Agosh (Book of Ether) amongst all that jungle growth.

Who knows, maybe the plains near the Hill Cumorah will also be find also amongst all that Mesoamerican jungle. Ha ha!

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Given the purpose of the BoM, words matter very much.  For example, in Moroni's promise in Moroni chapter 10, how do you know the Holy Ghost is not mistaken for something else?  If horse could mean tapir, then ghost could mean the following: shadow, fandom, demon, alien, zombie, poltergeist, etc.  

You can't have it both ways and say it doesn't matter if certain words might have a different underlying meaning without affecting all words throughout the book.  

 

I absolutely can have it both ways. Nuances, remember?

I can believe in a God who guided the translation process so that it conveyed spiritual truth but did not micromanage it on insignificant details. 

[PeterPear]

49 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I absolutely can have it both ways. Nuances, remember?

I can believe in a God who guided the translation process so that it conveyed spiritual truth but did not micromanage it on insignificant details. 

Pray tell us the insignificant details of The Book of Mormon the god you believe in did not micromanage in the translation process.

By extension, which part of you personally and of your life is insignificant to the god you believe in.

Edited March 18, 2017 by PeterPear

[ksfisher]

21 minutes ago, PeterPear said:

Pray tell us the insignificant details of The Book of Mormon the god you believe in did not micromanage in the translation process.

By extension, which part of you personally and of your life is insignificant to the god you believe in.

You're twisting what Bluebell is saying.  She's coming anywhere close to saying that anyone's life is insignificant to God, but that God did not micromanage Joseph Smith in the translation process.  

Bluebell is a respected poster who is trying to have a good faith discussion with you.  She deserves your respect in return.

[PeterPear]

7 hours ago, ksfisher said:

You're twisting what Bluebell is saying.  She's coming anywhere close to saying that anyone's life is insignificant to God, but that God did not micromanage Joseph Smith in the translation process.  

Bluebell is a respected poster who is trying to have a good faith discussion with you.  She deserves your respect in return.

Ok I respect that. 

How about some respect for the keystone of our religion other than diminishing its importance?

Her position is one promoted by scholars when the Book of Mormon doesn't fit their paradigm of a Central America geographical location.

"well, a horse could be a tapir, because our chosen location is correct, therefore, hum, well, let's see, the Lord didn't micromanage the translation process then...thus..therefore...we must conclude...there is a consensus...that...well...the translated words aren't entirely exact ...especially the ones that aren't significant...because our chosen geographical location is..."

She's not sharing anything unique.

Respectfully

Then when one asks what else you believe the Lord believes is insignificant about the Book of Mormon, it's considered an attack upon a poster who's been posting at this site for years. "How dare you question me! Don't you know I'm the founder of this community?!"

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, PeterPear said:

Pray tell us the insignificant details of The Book of Mormon the god you believe in did not micromanage in the translation process.

By extension, which part of you personally and of your life is insignificant to the god you believe in.

I already gave an example a couple of posts ago. Just go back and read it. 

[ksfisher]

8 hours ago, PeterPear said:

Ok I respect that. 

How about some respect for the keystone of our religion other than diminishing its importance?

Her position is one promoted by scholars when the Book of Mormon doesn't fit their paradigm of a Central America geographical location.

"well, a horse could be a tapir, because our chosen location is correct, therefore, hum, well, let's see, the Lord didn't micromanage the translation process then...thus..therefore...we must conclude...there is a consensus...that...well...the translated words aren't entirely exact ...especially the ones that aren't significant...because our chosen geographical location is..."

She's not sharing anything unique.

Respectfully

Then when one asks what else you believe the Lord believes is insignificant about the Book of Mormon, it's considered an attack upon a poster who's been posting at this site for years. "How dare you question me! Don't you know I'm the founder of this community?!"

It is possible to believe in a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon and still have strong faith in, and a testimony of the Book of Mormon.  For me it is the bedrock, along with my testimony of the Savior, upon which my belief rests upon.  Whether Mormon road to work every day on a tapir or a horse or in a chariot really doesn't matter.  Details such as theses help us to add depth, color, and understanding to our study of the Book of Mormon, but at the end of the day the only things that really matters is that we accept the Savior of whom the writers of the Book of Mormon testify of.

Edited March 18, 2017 by ksfisher

[thesometimesaint]

13 hours ago, PeterPear said:

"The search in Mesoamerica is in its infancy."

 Must be really tough to find in Dr. Sorenson's stated and limited 500 x 200 mile area.

Maybe the new technology will find the Plains of Nephihah and the plains near the city of Mulek (Alma 52 & 62) and the Plains of Heshlon and the Plains of Agosh (Book of Ether) amongst all that jungle growth.

Who knows, maybe the plains near the Hill Cumorah will also be find also amongst all that Mesoamerican jungle. Ha ha!

100,000 sq miles is a big area(About the size of Colorado). Did ancient Troy exist before it was found in 1865?

[Ouagadougou]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

I absolutely can have it both ways. Nuances, remember?

I can believe in a God who guided the translation process so that it conveyed spiritual truth but did not micromanage it on insignificant details. 

You can believe what you want, but many others might not consider these just "nuances."  For example, when JS was using some of his translation instruments, words would appear on the seer stone.  Was God just letting the word "horse" appear on the stone and not tapir?  Or, if JS made mistakes in his translation of certain words, it could affect any word in the BoM; thus, changing the underlying meaning of a particular verse.  

[thesometimesaint]

If the words appeared in English on the stone no translation would be necessary.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

You can believe what you want, but many others might not consider these just "nuances."  For example, when JS was using some of his translation instruments, words would appear on the seer stone.  Was God just letting the word "horse" appear on the stone and not tapir?  Or, if JS made mistakes in his translation of certain words, it could affect any word in the BoM; thus, changing the underlying meaning of a particular verse.  

Of course i can believe what i want.  That's not even in question.

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Of course i can believe what i want.  That's not even in question.

Yep...what's in question is the overall historicity, validity, and credibility of JS, BoM, translation and narrative of the church.  You believe changing words is just a nuance, but many others (including myself) feel it is a major issue.  

[Gervin]

On 3/17/2017 at 1:51 PM, thesometimesaint said:

1. The search in Mesoamerica is in its infancy.

To a large degree, true.  But the more important question is, what conclusions do scholars draw from what has been found? And, what sample sizes are we dealing with?

 

On 3/17/2017 at 1:51 PM, thesometimesaint said:

2. Even if found how could you distinguish them from other ruins, by satellite pictures?

I think LiDar and the like are helping to identify locations of habitation which scientists and archaeologists can use to piece together possible intra- and extra-state rule, resources, and relationships.  As an example, the location of former cities and state/cultural centers has helped scholars identify the location of specific quarries that supplied jade to different parts of Mesoamerica and different times.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

Yep...what's in question is the overall historicity, validity, and credibility of JS, BoM, translation and narrative of the church.  You believe changing words is just a nuance, but many others (including myself) feel it is a major issue.  

You haven't successfully explained why it's an issue though. 

For example, I am nuanced in my relationship with my own children.  Depending on my objective, my focus on things is sometimes strict and sometimes it's easy going. Some issues are significant and require more hands on parenting from me and others are insignificant so I step back and let my children lead, allowing mistakes to stand when they are don't impact the objective. 

Those nuances on their own do not affect the validity, credibility, or historicity of my interactions with my children.

Why do they call into question the validity or credibility of God's interaction with His children (or JS specifically) in regards to the BOM?

 

Edited March 18, 2017 by bluebell

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

Yep...what's in question is the overall historicity, validity, and credibility of JS, BoM, translation and narrative of the church.  You believe changing words is just a nuance, but many others (including myself) feel it is a major issue. 

Edited March 19, 2017 by bluebell

[Ouagadougou]

46 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You haven't successfully explained why it's an issue though. 

For example, I am nuanced in my relationship with my own children.  Depending on my objective, my focus on things is sometimes strict and sometimes it's easy going. Some issues are significant and require more hands on parenting from me and others are insignificant so I step back and let my children lead, allowing mistakes to stand when they are don't impact the objective. 

Those nuances on their own do not affect the validity, credibility, or historicity of my interactions with my children.

Why do they call into question the validity or credibility of God's interaction with His children (or JS specifically) in regards to the BOM?

 

I've listed several valid reasons, IMO, and many people I know agree that changing words' meaning in the BoM is problematic.

The horse, for example:

When you consider that no horses were present in the Americas before the arrival of the Europeans, this one word affects the historicity, credibility and validity of the BoM and its translation. Apologists are forced to change the meaning of certain words in order for the BoM to align with the correlated narrative that it's non-fiction and a historical/ancient text.

"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book."

Joseph Smith

IMO, you can't claim this quote above when the BoM has had thousands of changes since the 1830 version...and they are still changing or suggesting certain words have alternate meanings today.  Like I said, you think it's no big deal, but others find it problematic.  Joseph Smith translated the word "horse" 14 times in the BoM; that's just one of several words that could have an alternate meaning that he failed to translate correctly.  Now, add onto that one word other words like: wheel, chariot, elephant, gold/silver coins, MILLIONS killed in battle..and the list goes on and on.  

 

 

[probablyHagoth7]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

You haven't successfully explained why it's an issue though. 

For example, I am nuanced in my relationship with my own children.  Depending on my objective, my focus on things is sometimes strict and sometimes it's easy going. Some issues are significant and require more hands on parenting from me and others are insignificant so I step back and let my children lead, allowing mistakes to stand when they are don't impact the objective. 

Those nuances on their own do not affect the validity, credibility, or historicity of my interactions with my children....

QFT

[thesometimesaint]

15 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I've listed several valid reasons, IMO, and many people I know agree that changing words' meaning in the BoM is problematic.

The horse, for example:

When you consider that no horses were present in the Americas before the arrival of the Europeans, this one word affects the historicity, credibility and validity of the BoM and its translation. Apologists are forced to change the meaning of certain words in order for the BoM to align with the correlated narrative that it's non-fiction and a historical/ancient text.

"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book."

Joseph Smith

IMO, you can't claim this quote above when the BoM has had thousands of changes since the 1830 version...and they are still changing or suggesting certain words have alternate meanings today.  Like I said, you think it's no big deal, but others find it problematic.  Joseph Smith translated the word "horse" 14 times in the BoM; that's just one of several words that could have an alternate meaning that he failed to translate correctly.  Now, add onto that one word other words like: wheel, chariot, elephant, gold/silver coins, MILLIONS killed in battle..and the list goes on and on. 

The precepts are what is important.

No; there hasn't been thousands of changes of any significance to the Book of Mormon. Nearly every one of those "changes" is the versification of the book.

[clarkgoble]

On 3/18/2017 at 7:03 PM, Ouagadougou said:

Like I said, you think it's no big deal, but others find it problematic.  Joseph Smith translated the word "horse" 14 times in the BoM; that's just one of several words that could have an alternate meaning that he failed to translate correctly.  Now, add onto that one word other words like: wheel, chariot, elephant, gold/silver coins, MILLIONS killed in battle..and the list goes on and on.  

I think the reasons why they think it problematic matter though. Typically this is, as I've noted, due to their expectations of what a translation ought be like. Assuming that the translation should translate English words with the referent rather than English words following the KJV translation of the same words is just that, an assumption. There's no need to do translations that way.

[clarkgoble]

On 3/17/2017 at 7:44 PM, Ouagadougou said:

Given the purpose of the BoM, words matter very much.  For example, in Moroni's promise in Moroni chapter 10, how do you know the Holy Ghost is not mistaken for something else?  If horse could mean tapir, then ghost could mean the following: shadow, fandom, demon, alien, zombie, poltergeist, etc.  

You can't have it both ways and say it doesn't matter if certain words might have a different underlying meaning without affecting all words throughout the book.  

If words are interpreted in terms of use within the text rather than merely by their denotation this isn't an issue. Indeed when reading translated texts it's understanding the term by the opposition it finds itself in that matters most. Even in non-translated texts where an author typically is using a word in a slightly different sense this occurs all the time. The alternative is to coin neologisms but that comes with its own costs.

A great example to see this is in philosophical texts such as by Plato or Aristotle. Typically the words translators pick don't quite match the use in the underlying text but are a "close enough" choice. This almost always leads readers to misinterpret the text somewhat, so teachers usually emphasize trying to see how the word is used. Appeals to meaning by dictionary meaning almost always get wrong how a particular author is using that word.

Edited March 20, 2017 by clarkgoble

[ksfisher]

On 3/18/2017 at 7:03 PM, Ouagadougou said:

I've listed several valid reasons, IMO, and many people I know agree that changing words' meaning in the BoM is problematic.

The horse, for example:

When you consider that no horses were present in the Americas before the arrival of the Europeans, this one word affects the historicity, credibility and validity of the BoM and its translation. Apologists are forced to change the meaning of certain words in order for the BoM to align with the correlated narrative that it's non-fiction and a historical/ancient text.

"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book."

Joseph Smith

IMO, you can't claim this quote above when the BoM has had thousands of changes since the 1830 version...and they are still changing or suggesting certain words have alternate meanings today.  Like I said, you think it's no big deal, but others find it problematic.  Joseph Smith translated the word "horse" 14 times in the BoM; that's just one of several words that could have an alternate meaning that he failed to translate correctly.  Now, add onto that one word other words like: wheel, chariot, elephant, gold/silver coins, MILLIONS killed in battle..and the list goes on and on.  

 

 

What if the word that was on the plates was horse?  What if the Lehites, upon arrival in the new world, used their old world word for horse to describe a new world animal that they had no word for?

[Ouagadougou]

On 19.03.2017 at 9:43 AM, thesometimesaint said:

The precepts are what is important.

No; there hasn't been thousands of changes of any significance to the Book of Mormon. Nearly every one of those "changes" is the versification of the book.

Actually, there have been thousands of changes to the original version of the BoM. 

"Yet, the book which Joseph Smith declared was "the most correct of any book on earth" (History of the Church, vol. 4, p. 461) has been revised in over 3900 places. Most of these changes were made to correct embarrassing spelling and grammatical errors (this will be examined in more detail later in this article). However, there are numerous other changes which affect the doctrinal teachings of the Book of Mormon."

http://mit.irr.org/changes-latter-day-scripture

 

 

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

What if the word that was on the plates was horse?  What if the Lehites, upon arrival in the new world, used their old world word for horse to describe a new world animal that they had no word for?

That contradicts what JS's mother said about her son and his abilities to understand ancient inhabitants and their animals. She said:

"During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelings, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them.^[1]"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/"Amusing_recitals"_of_ancient_American_inhabitants

If JS had such experiences before or after he received the golden plates, clearly he knew that a horse and tapir were different animals.  Also, JS used instruments, on which words appears (on the seer stone), to translate the BoM, so that would mean the power of God was allowing those mistakes/anachronisms to be channeled/translated to JS on these instruments.  

"Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument.^26"

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng&old=true

This means that he words "horse," chariot," "wheel" etc. (or other mistakes) would appear as English words on the instrument.  This is what is so problematic with the translation process, IMO, because, if JS was translating by the spirit/power of God, then such mistakes/anachronisms should have been avoided.  How do King James Bible errors appear as words on the seer stone for a text that is thousands of years older?  

 

 

[clarkgoble]

27 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Actually, there have been thousands of changes to the original version of the BoM. 

"Yet, the book which Joseph Smith declared was "the most correct of any book on earth" (History of the Church, vol. 4, p. 461) has been revised in over 3900 places. Most of these changes were made to correct embarrassing spelling and grammatical errors (this will be examined in more detail later in this article). However, there are numerous other changes which affect the doctrinal teachings of the Book of Mormon."

Aren't you merely making her point? She said, "there hasn't been thousands of changes of any significance to the Book of Mormon." (emphasis mine) None of the changes make significant changes in meaning.

Now I'm not sure I'd go as far as she does. There are a few places where Joseph modified God into "son of God" to clarify an ambiguity that to my eyes is significant. (1 Ne 11:21,32; 13:40)  Although I'm still not sure it changes the meaning much. (Especially given the backdrop of a loose translation) In other places the changes are due to it being dictated and words like "straight" and "strait" sounding the same and getting written down wrong. The biggest change of significance in my view is white getting changed by Joseph to pure and then later editions unfortunately not reflecting that change until the 1981 edition. (2 Ne 30:6) 

But as I said, the book doesn't purport to be without errors. Indeed Ether 12 has Moroni worried because of his weakness in writing. However the idea is that the meaning behind the text can be conveyed by the spirit. That "most correct" in terms of principles is what Joseph meant by saying it was the most correct book. The idea that it was correct in these other senses seems alien to the text itself. (Again reading Ether 12 is worthwhile here)