How an Ahistorical Book of Mormon Can Still Be Scripture

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This is a complete false comparison.  The sorcerer's apprentice is a novice who gets over his head because of ambition and curiosity before having a more complete understanding.  The religious traditionalist inserted into that same story would be casting spells without even consulting a book for understanding because they would arrogantly assume that education is unnecessary and dangerous.  The traditionalist would ignore the environment as it manifestests itself in real time and would stick to the program naive to the damage being done and holding out hope that their original traditionalist approach would somehow work in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.  .............................................  

Again, exactly the opposite is true.  Mormons emphasize education far more than the atheists and anti-Mormons.  Indeed, it is precisely the better educated Mormons who are the most faithful (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700215244/LDS-religious-commitment-high-Pew-survey-finds.html ).  What you call "religious traditionalists" are the most likely not to adopt silly, off the wall programs.  They leave that to arrogant interlopers and complainers who haven't any faith or any clue as to what actually works in the real world.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Good call. I rushed into that example, hoping to use a canonical example and completely botched it. My mistake. Can I please have a do over? I do think dreams can be an excellent example of what I'm talking about, but they could always be interpreted as figuritive, which invalidates points about subjectivity.

Let me instead focus just on the subjective nature of revelation and use one of JS's early revelations that said there would be a "reformation" of the churches. When that didn't work out JS edited that portion out of the revelation. There is a pretty clear example of a portion of a revelation which was proven to be subjective because it turned out to be false. 

I am open to a number of possibilities for the source of my revelatory dreams, but I lean towards a divine source for them. Yes, they contain spiritual truth. I believe in a benevolent something more which I call God, though I don't to hold to very many specific claims about God as I find them impossible to prove for the most part.

Humans do not have access to objective reality.  They often act and speak as if they do have such access, but the human condition makes that impossible.  A god might have access to objective reality, but we cannot say since that is beyond human ken.  We are trapped in a subjective world, and must make the best of it.  Faith is our only assurance of truth, and even that is difficult to achieve or be sure of.  So, if dreams and inspiration are helpful, by all means have at them, but don't confuse them with objective reality.  As Saint Paul says, we see now through a glass darkly, but someday we will see clearly and understand what now confuses us.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Benji, you don't have to waste ton of time rethinking about BoM being Scripture, because it is a valid Scripture as OT/NT ever been. 

Sounds like faint praise to me, buddy.  

[Atheist Mormon]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sounds like faint praise to me, buddy.  

It is my friend...Why would you ever think for a second that BoM is any less Scripture than OT or NT? Because Shwn McCraney or Sandra Tanner authorized them? 

The most important element is how you look at them, to me they are ordinary books but to masses they are Holy and so be it.

[hope_for_things]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Again, exactly the opposite is true.  Mormons emphasize education far more than the atheists and anti-Mormons.  Indeed, it is precisely the better educated Mormons who are the most faithful (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700215244/LDS-religious-commitment-high-Pew-survey-finds.html ).  What you call "religious traditionalists" are the most likely not to adopt silly, off the wall programs.  They leave that to arrogant interlopers and complainers who haven't any faith or any clue as to what actually works in the real world.

You've completely changed your original example.  The sorcerer's apprentice analogy was supposed to be a cautionary tale for those of us who aren't scholars, like myself (BTW, I have a master's degree and I teach some college courses as a side job to my daytime work) as a cautionary tale to those of us non-scholars who research things that we don't have a complete understanding of.  I asked you to defend the "this is dangerous" claim, and you did so with the analogy.  

Now you've completely switched gears to try and say that Mormons are better educated, this is not supporting your original point.  Should we continue to try and educate ourselves through study as you're saying Mormons are so good at, or should we avoid dipping our toes in that dangerous scholarship because we risk misinterpreting the material.  

[clarkgoble]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not clear what you mean by "that's not really sufficient to falsify the critics position."  What is the critics position which you refer to?  Are you speaking of people who fault Carmack, or people who declare Joseph a forger?

Well obviously it's up to the critics to make their case. Not me. But I think the reason this isn't persuasive to people is because it's quite possible Joseph heard people in his community speaking this way - a pocket of older language use. That's not at all uncommon. Joseph himself would see it as ungrammatical based upon what learning his parents had imparted to him and presumably based upon his own primary linguistic use. The argument would be that when Joseph went into a visionary state his linguistic patterns would change. (This is rather common in most religious movements - which is why word print analysis isn't as persuasive to critics as it is to many believers) The idea would be that for whatever reason he adopted these more archaic ways of speaking (perhaps because they seemed closer to the KJV) unconsciously when he was in these states.

To falsify this position it's not enough to say that the forms of speech weren't in Joseph's regular writing, nor recognize that Joseph saw them as ungrammatical, nor that they were uncommon in the 1820's. Rather one has to show that they were ever in Joseph's environment. But I just can't see how even in theory one could ever show that.

The analogy is to people giving blessings. (I'm going to over-generalize here to make a point but I recognize there's a lot of variance) Typically when giving a blessing ones linguistic patterns change. Now what determines that linguistic pattern? Sometimes it might be ones words are picked for people, but most of the time it's just an alternative manner of speaking we slip into that largely developed during our formative religious period. 

It also doesn't help for skeptics that the apologists raising the 16th century English points themselves have no theory about how it arose. Even in the typical faithful models these evidences are hard to fit. When apologists aren't quite sure what they mean, it's that much easier for people with doubts to dismiss them.

Edited August 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Good call. I rushed into that example, hoping to use a canonical example and completely botched it. My mistake. Can I please have a do over? I do think dreams can be an excellent example of what I'm talking about, but they could always be interpreted as figuritive, which invalidates points about subjectivity.

Let me instead focus just on the subjective nature of revelation and use one of JS's early revelations that said there would be a "reformation" of the churches. When that didn't work out JS edited that portion out of the revelation. There is a pretty clear example of a portion of a revelation which was proven to be subjective because it turned out to be false. 

I am open to a number of possibilities for the source of my revelatory dreams, but I lean towards a divine source for them. Yes, they contain spiritual truth. I believe in a benevolent something more which I call God, though I don't to hold to very many specific claims about God as I find them impossible to prove for the most part.

I have a thread running at T&S you might find interesting.  http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2017/08/guest-post-justifying-visions/

Edited August 10, 2017 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

13 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Good call. I rushed into that example, hoping to use a canonical example and completely botched it. My mistake. Can I please have a do over? I do think dreams can be an excellent example of what I'm talking about, but they could always be interpreted as figuritive, which invalidates points about subjectivity.

I don't think the points you made were bad at all. I think dreams actually are a good analogy although as with all analogies they break down when pushed too far. I'd add that I think the objectivity vs. subjectivity distinction isn't helpful unless we clarify what we mean by it. We're finite beings so our understanding is always incomplete and usually in error in some way. Yet we are always involved in the "real world" outside of my understanding. I act on beliefs and if those beliefs are false I don't get the expected consequences. 

Mark, I suspect, would say it is all subjective but clearly Mark would even distinguish between fictions and non-fictions. So I'm not sure that subjectivity offers as much help as some suggest. Rather the question is much more what something means. I tend to think the focus on subjective/objective obscures what's typically the real issue.

Quote

Let me instead focus just on the subjective nature of revelation and use one of JS's early revelations that said there would be a "reformation" of the churches. When that didn't work out JS edited that portion out of the revelation. There is a pretty clear example of a portion of a revelation which was proven to be subjective because it turned out to be false. 

Could you expand a bit? I'm not sure what revelation you're referring to. I assume you meant something in the Book of Commandments that changed with the edits for the D&C. I ask, because depending upon what you are referring to it may well have been fulfilled. The era of Joseph Smith was an era of pretty big religious change.

I'd add that independent of Joseph Smith, I'm a pretty big fallibilist. I screw up in the details of everything I do. Revelation is no different. Reminds me of when I was blessing my first baby. The spirit was really strong and I felt ideas coming to me. After a minute the Bishop interrupts to tell me I didn't do it right. (I had but I'd just phrased it in a way he wasn't used to) Now was my particular phrasing a mistake or inspired? Beats me. The Bishop thought it a mistake. Despite the spirit and feeling like I was speaking in an inspired way, I have no way of knowing whether I just screwed up in some fashion I wasn't even aware of. However whether incorrect or not, it affected how people interpreted what I said. And they interpreted it in such a way that it became a mistake whether it was one or not properly.

Quote

I am open to a number of possibilities for the source of my revelatory dreams, but I lean towards a divine source for them. Yes, they contain spiritual truth. I believe in a benevolent something more which I call God, though I don't to hold to very many specific claims about God as I find them impossible to prove for the most part.

I'll confess I've never had what I'd call a divine dream. My dreams are pretty mundane. But even if I had one, I'd have to ask how and why I'd identify it as from God rather than just my subconscious broadly speaking. It seems that to even make that judgment requires something beyond the dream. It seems that the real question is thus that element that informs our judgment rather than the dream proper that is in question.

 

Edited August 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Well obviously it's up to the critics to make their case. Not me. But I think the reason this isn't persuasive to people is because it's quite possible Joseph heard people in his community speaking this way - a pocket of older language use. That's not at all uncommon.

The problem with this theory is that there is zero evidence for it.  Early Modern English had been extinct for two centuries, and there is no known dialect or vernacular speech which preserved it anywhere.  Of course there are various dialects in America, but that is not evidence that Early Modern English was preserved anywhere.  If you think otherwise, please provide citations.

Quote

Joseph himself would see it as ungrammatical based upon what learning his parents had imparted to him and presumably based upon his own primary linguistic use. The argument would be that when Joseph went into a visionary state his linguistic patterns would change. (This is rather common in most religious movements - which is why word print analysis isn't as persuasive to critics as it is to many believers) The idea would be that for whatever reason he adopted these more archaic ways of speaking (perhaps because they seemed closer to the KJV) unconsciously when he was in these states.

Once again, where is the evidence for this?  There is none, and Early Modern English is not part of KJV style.  How is it that Joseph would suddenly go into a state in which the high style of 1540 would suddenly come out of his mouth?  Sounds more like demonic possession.  Such claims beg the question.

Quote

To falsify this position it's not enough to say that the forms of speech weren't in Joseph's regular writing, nor recognize that Joseph saw them as ungrammatical, nor that they were uncommon in the 1820's. Rather one has to show that they were ever in Joseph's environment. But I just can't see how even in theory one could ever show that.

Various writers in that area and period (in books and newspapers) actually gave us vernacular conversations, so we know a bit about the various dialects available.*  Yet we have no evidence to support your notion that the high style of 1540 would be maintained in some American backwater.  Indeed, you appear to be supporting this odd notion through the very lack of evidence which you perceive -- which is irrational.

*  Trollope, Fanny, Domestic Manners of the Americans, 2 vols. (1832).

Neville-Sington, Pamela, Fanny Trollope: The Life and Adventures of a Clever Woman (London: Viking, 1997/N.Y.: Viking, 1998). 

Quote

The analogy is to people giving blessings. (I'm going to over-generalize here to make a point but I recognize there's a lot of variance) Typically when giving a blessing ones linguistic patterns change. Now what determines that linguistic pattern? Sometimes it might be ones words are picked for people, but most of the time it's just an alternative manner of speaking we slip into that largely developed during our formative religious period. 

True enough, but those ways of speaking are well understood and can be fully accounted for by linguistic experts.

Quote

It also doesn't help for skeptics that the apologists raising the 16th century English points themselves have no theory about how it arose. Even in the typical faithful models these evidences are hard to fit. When apologists aren't quite sure what they mean, it's that much easier for people with doubts to dismiss them.

False on several counts:  First, this is not apologetics, and no purpose is served for apologetics by dreaming up a connection with Early Modern English.  This is straight scholarship.  How it is to be explained remains open to both anti-Mormon and pro-Mormon critique, since either POV can be served by such facts.  Indeed, all of the basic pro- and anti-Mormon debates are merely set back a couple of centuries by the Carmack analysis.  This doesn't improve things for either side.  It merely muddies the waters.  It certainly hasn't fit in with my own preconceptions, but it is entirely valid scholarship.  We have to live with it.

Edited August 10, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You've completely changed your original example.  The sorcerer's apprentice analogy was supposed to be a cautionary tale for those of us who aren't scholars, like myself (BTW, I have a master's degree and I teach some college courses as a side job to my daytime work) as a cautionary tale to those of us non-scholars who research things that we don't have a complete understanding of.  I asked you to defend the "this is dangerous" claim, and you did so with the analogy.  

Now you've completely switched gears to try and say that Mormons are better educated, this is not supporting your original point.  Should we continue to try and educate ourselves through study as you're saying Mormons are so good at, or should we avoid dipping our toes in that dangerous scholarship because we risk misinterpreting the material.  

Entirely false.  So far as I can tell, religious traditionalists (your term) do not suddenly dip their toes in advanced scholarship (professional linguistics, history, archeology, theology, and the like) and are even wary of it.  Just like you, they may have a masters in some innocuous field not dealing with religion or history, and they live their domestic and professional lives without adopting the need to be the "sorcerer's apprentice."  We certainly don't find them on this board, and they do not imagine that by reading a couple of books and articles that they are suddenly capable of scholarship.  They recognize their limitations.

By and large, Mormons are better educated than the hoi polloi (but not better educated than Jews).  You need to take a look at the stats for yourself.  For most communities, the more educated they are, the more likely they are to reject a traditional religious heritage.  That Mormons do not share that typical path is remarkable, but explicable based on their inherently rational theological foundations.  Mormon culture is just different, but not irrational.  You are confusing ordinary liberal arts and engineering education with specialized knowledge of linguistics, archeology, history, and theology -- which is not amenable to the ordinary job market, and so is avoided by most people, including most Mormons.

[hope_for_things]

22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Entirely false.  So far as I can tell, religious traditionalists (your term) do not suddenly dip their toes in advanced scholarship (professional linguistics, history, archeology, theology, and the like) and are even wary of it.  Just like you, they may have a masters in some innocuous field not dealing with religion or history, and they live their domestic and professional lives without adopting the need to be the "sorcerer's apprentice."  We certainly don't find them on this board, and they do not imagine that by reading a couple of books and articles that they are suddenly capable of scholarship.  They recognize their limitations.

By and large, Mormons are better educated than the hoi polloi (but not better educated than Jews).  You need to take a look at the stats for yourself.  For most communities, the more educated they are, the more likely they are to reject a traditional religious heritage.  That Mormons do not share that typical path is remarkable, but explicable based on their inherently rational theological foundations.  Mormon culture is just different, but not irrational.  You are confusing ordinary liberal arts and engineering education with specialized knowledge of linguistics, archeology, history, and theology -- which is not amenable to the ordinary job market, and so is avoided by most people, including most Mormons.

We're on totally different planets and the conversation has drifted so far off the original course, that I'm going to say, thank you, but I heartily disagree.  

[Gray]

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The point is, Gray, that there are no 19th century artifacts in the BofM.  Since it was published in 1830, it is true that people read it as 19th century literature, and they imagine it to fit that preconception, but there is no evidence to support the claim.  Indeed, we have systematic linguistic evidence placing it in the 16th century.  The major disjunctures with the 19th century include::

1.  Even though “Joseph Smith’s own life at the time of the translation included influential women such as his mother and his wife of less than a year, those seeking the origins of the book in his personal history have to somehow explain the absence of any accounts of courtship, romance, or maternal interaction.”  (Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide [Oxford Univ. Press, 2010], 288 n. 3).

2.  Despite claims that the early 19th century is Joseph’s source for the Book of Mormon, Richard Bushman took a hard look at this typical, oft-repeated claim and found it wanting.  Bushman terms the Book of Mormon “almost postmodern in its self-conscious attention to the production of the text” (Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling,87), thus, by implication, lending itself well to analysis via the Documentary Hypothesis.  Instead of the vast numbers of parallels claimed by anti-Mormons, Bushman shows how out-of-synch the BofM is with then contemporary thought: “the American story does not control the narrative” (101); the BofM “does not plant seeds of democracy in the primeval history of the nation” (102), etc.

Bushman has claimed (in his AMA on Reddit) that the Book of Mormon contains early 19th century protestant sermons. When I read it I see very clear threads of American nationalism and American Protestantism. I'm not the only one.  And of course the BOM confirms some 19th century beliefs about Native Americans that were pretty popular at the time, but are no longer held by anyone today outside of the Mormon tradition.

Can't the areas where the Book of Mormon goes against the grain of 19th century expectations also be interpreted as artifacts of Joseph Smith's own particular world view, and in some respects his youth and idealism?

 

Quote

3.  Note Bushman's observation that the Book of Mormon "patriotically [honors] America by giving it a biblical history. And yet on closer reading, the Book of Mormon contests the amalgam of Enlightenment, republican, Protestant, capitalist, and nationalist values that constituted American culture. . . . Against increasing wealth and inequality, the Book of Mormon advocates the cause of the poor. Against the subjection of the Indians, it promises the continent to the native people. Against republican government, it proposes righteous rule by judges and kings under God’s law. Against a closed-canon Bible and non-miraculous religion, the Book of Mormon stands for ongoing revelation, miracles, and revelation to all nations. Against skepticism, it promotes belief; against nationalism, a universal Israel. It foresees disaster for the nation if the love of riches, resistance to revelation, and Gentile civilization prevail over righteousness, revelation, and Israel . . . the Book of Mormon can be read as a ‘document of profound social protest’ against the dominant culture of Joseph Smith’s time" (Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 104-105).

Okay, but again these are responses to American culture, right? Joseph sides with Jesus in his advocacy for the poor and marginalized. The judges and kings are right there in the Bible for Joseph to pluck out. This doesn't necessarily take it out of a 19th century setting.

 

Quote

You might want to take into account this video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j-8nh3ctxk .  The scholarship is anything but tentative now.

 

I'll watch when I have the chance. In Biblical scholarship there are some areas where there is is strong scholarly consensus, like Markan priority in the gospels. I don't see anything like that for Book of Mormon scholarship. We have a couple of scholars claiming there is pre-KJV EME in the BOM, others who disagree, but no real response to the theory yet. Or that's what I hear - many have criticized the theory but no one has published scholarly response yet. Is that accurate? To me that says this theory hasn't really been vetted yet. As a non-scholar I look for that kind of thorough vetting - because there is no guarantee that a layman such as myself will properly understand the evidence!

As I understand it, there hasn't been the kind of critical study of the Book of Mormon that there has been for the Bible. Outside of a small group of ideologically committed Mormons and exmormons, most non-Mormon interest in the BOM seems to be in its impact as a religious text in the 19th century and onwards.

I think the BOM is kind of rejected out of hand as being historical because it contains so many artifacts that would tell a Biblical scholar that this is a post-Biblical work. The inclusion of the story of Jesus bleeding from every pore, or the virgin Mary, or 2nd Isaiah in 600 BCE, or the particular atonement theology in the BOM are quite anachronistic if it's supposed to predate the development of those stories and beliefs. I think for that reason it isn't taken seriously as an ancient text outside of some very small circles. Whether that's fair or not is up for debate.

Edited August 10, 2017 by Gray

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Bushman has claimed (in his AMA on Reddit) that the Book of Mormon contains early 19th century protestant sermons. When I read it I see very clear threads of American nationalism and American Protestantism. I'm not the only one.  And of course the BOM confirms some 19th century beliefs about Native Americans that were pretty popular at the time, but are no longer held by anyone today outside of the Mormon tradition.

I don't see that at all.  Most of those notions and correlations are made from preconceptions and nearly all apriori -- being eisegetically read into the text based on 19th century expectations.  Try reading the text with an unbiased purview, and note how a very different conclusion can be reached.  For example, an anthropologist would immediately want to know where any Amerinds exist who have huge cities, cement, metallurgy, populations in the millions, literacy. etc., as depicted in the BofM.  Nothing even remotely like that can be found among the Algonquins or Iroquois, or any of their neighbors in Joseph's neck of the woods.  They are basically illiterate stone-age people, with small villages, and small populations.  The BofM is utterly foreign to them --confirming them not at all.

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Can't the areas where the Book of Mormon goes against the grain of 19th century expectations also be interpreted as artifacts of Joseph Smith's own particular world view, and in some respects his youth and idealism?

Okay, but again these are responses to American culture, right? Joseph sides with Jesus in his advocacy for the poor and marginalized. The judges and kings are right there in the Bible for Joseph to pluck out. This doesn't necessarily take it out of a 19th century setting.

Here, as above, each 19th century expectation is self-fulfilling (even the ones supposedly opposing it), and must ignore the best scholarship -- which makes it clear that Joseph could not have composed the book.  It is in a language and dialect of English which he did not and could not know.  No one wanted to reach that conclusion, and no one had a  motive to do so.  That conclusion was the fruit of basic research as part of the much larger FARMS Book of Mormon Critical Text Project -- which I began back in the 1970s.

3 hours ago, Gray said:

I'll watch when I have the chance. In Biblical scholarship there are some areas where there is is strong scholarly consensus, like Markan priority in the gospels. I don't see anything like that for Book of Mormon scholarship. We have a couple of scholars claiming there is pre-KJV EME in the BOM, others who disagree, but no real response to the theory yet. Or that's what I hear - many have criticized the theory but no one has published scholarly response yet. Is that accurate? To me that says this theory hasn't really been vetted yet. As a non-scholar I look for that kind of thorough vetting - because there is no guarantee that a layman such as myself will properly understand the evidence!

As I understand it, there hasn't been the kind of critical study of the Book of Mormon that there has been for the Bible.

Those of us who are biblical scholars saw the need for the critical study of the Mormon Canon many decades ago, and have done just that.  Have a look at my 2011 article on “Textual Criticism: Book of Mormon,” in Wikipedia, online at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism , or at my “Textual Criticism of the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Update, September 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 77-79, online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=786 .  FARMS has published dozens of  volumes in the Critical Text Project since 1984.  Non-Mormon biblical scholars from around the world will be in Provo next week to confer with us on the phenomenon of chiasmus.

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Outside of a small group of ideologically committed Mormons and exmormons, most non-Mormon interest in the BOM seems to be in its impact as a religious text in the 19th century and onwards.

I think the BOM is kind of rejected out of hand as being historical because it contains so many artifacts that would tell a Biblical scholar that this is a post-Biblical work. The inclusion of the story of Jesus bleeding from every pore, or the virgin Mary, or 2nd Isaiah in 600 BCE, or the particular atonement theology in the BOM are quite anachronistic if it's supposed to predate the development of those stories and beliefs. I think for that reason it isn't taken seriously as an ancient text outside of some very small circles. Whether that's fair or not is up for debate.

A lot of non-scholars do adopt that view, without however actually taking a careful look at the issues or at the research which has been done.

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The problem with this theory is that there is zero evidence for it.  Early Modern English had been extinct for two centuries, and there is no known dialect or vernacular speech which preserved it anywhere.  Of course there are various dialects in America, but that is not evidence that Early Modern English was preserved anywhere.  If you think otherwise, please provide citations.

Again this is not really an argument since it conflates what is preserved from when most studies were done with what was in use in the 1820's. Finding a survey from the period in question isn't the same has having comprehensive information about what was in use. And you're neglecting the point I'm raising. I'm not saying there's evidence for this. I'm saying there's no possible evidence one way or the other. You're implicitly arguing that there's a burden of proof for those claiming it was preserved but I confess I don't see that.

Quote

How is it that Joseph would suddenly go into a state in which the high style of 1540 would suddenly come out of his mouth?  Sounds more like demonic possession.  Such claims beg the question.

Again, remember this is not my argument. And it's ultimately not mine to flesh out. I'm at best trying to explain why people I've talked with don't find this evidence as persuasive as you do. From their perspective people in these religious states simply behave differently linguistically. (Which I don't think is a terribly unique claim) The origins of this different state likely come from their youth. As to where Joseph would have experienced it, that then gets at the issue of whether they have to prove a negative regarding disproving such vernacular.

So the argument really reduces down to who has the burden of proof. They simply feel they have to establish it as plausible someone spoke like that and would note that what you demand is impossible.

Quote

False on several counts:  First, this is not apologetics, and no purpose is served for apologetics by dreaming up a connection with Early Modern English.  This is straight scholarship.  How it is to be explained remains open to both anti-Mormon and pro-Mormon critique, since either POV can be served by such facts.  Indeed, all of the basic pro- and anti-Mormon debates are merely set back a couple of centuries by the Carmack analysis.  This doesn't improve things for either side.  It merely muddies the waters.  It certainly hasn't fit in with my own preconceptions, but it is entirely valid scholarship.  We have to live with it.

I'm not sure that's true. And while it's not apologetics to note the phenomena, to say that the text was written in the 16th century is an apologetic argument that goes beyond what Carmack's arguments could possibly establish. Carmack has at best shown it uses aspects of 16th century ways of speaking. As soon as you say, Joseph didn't write it, you're doing apologetics.

Again, trying to anticipate what a naturalistic critic might argue, they might simply say that Joseph was reading older books that perhaps have that vernacular. Now I am certainly not prepared to make that argument. The linguistic patterns are just not something I'm familiar with enough to discuss. I'd have to reread Carmack's papers but I don't recall if he did controls for such things. I know we have a good accounting of what was in the Manchester library but not the Palmyra library. (I might be mistaken in that but I just searched and couldn't find a list) And of course we don't know what neighbors or others he met would have had.

I'm not sure it's possible to prove what he didn't have access to. The issue of what he could have read is of course controversial. But there were lots of old religious texts and philosophical or quasi-philosophical texts from the 16th century in circulation in the US at the time. Doing a quick Google by date I found books dated to that century I found lots of platonic dialogs, Augustine translations, and so forth. That's without looking for books that were reprinted versions of 16th century texts such as the extremely popular and reprinted Foxe's Book of Martyrs. Were I a skeptic looking for 16th century linguistic influence that's where I'd start. I'd also look to the 16th century translations of Utopia. It's on the outside edge but I'd look to Florio's translations of Montaigne which I believe first was in 1603 but frequently published thereafter. Spenser's The Fairy Queen was the late 16th century and very popular in reprints. Erasmus' In Praise of Folly had a 16th century translation that was reprinted a lot. There are a lot of other such works such as Charles Knight's Popular History of England that was 16th century but still being reprinted from what I could tell. That's all with a quick Google.

I'm not saying there aren't issues with those books as the influence. As I recall Carmack's argument wasn't just for 16th century but also claims about the region. But my point is that to really make the argument you're trying to make you have to deal with all those popular 16th century texts. The average person will hear "16th century" and think, "there were lots of 16th century books around."

Edited August 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That conclusion was the fruit of basic research as part of the much larger FARMS Book of Mormon Critical Text Project -- which I began back in the 1970s.

That's very interesting. I didn't know it was you and not Skousen who did that. I'd been in Skousen's work room on the project several times in the early 90's. It was very impressive to see. You deserve a lot of praise for getting that project off the ground.

[Robert F. Smith]

24 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again this is not really an argument since it conflates what is preserved in the 20th century when most studies were done with what was preserved in the 1820's. And you're neglecting the point I'm raising. I'm not saying there's evidence for this. I'm saying there's no possible evidence one way or the other. You're implicitly arguing that there's a burden of proof for those claiming it was preserved but I confess I don't see that.

I see that you have carefully ignored the actual evidence from Joseph Smith's own time and place (I cited Fanny Trollope).  I did not suggest that we should rely on 20th century studies of 20th century dialects, and did not refer to them in any way.  The sincere scholar looks at the books and newspapers from Joseph's own time and place, and doesn't bring in lame objections.  And, yes, the burden of proof is on those making tendentious claims.

24 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again, remember this is not my argument. And it's ultimately not mine to flesh out. I'm at best trying to explain why people I've talked with don't find this evidence as persuasive as you do. From their perspective people in these religious states simply behave differently linguistically. (Which I don't think is a terribly unique claim) The origins of this different state likely come from their youth. As to where Joseph would have experienced it, that then gets at the issue of whether they have to prove a negative regarding disproving such vernacular.

Then, by all means, let them come forth with the evidence.  Let them flesh out their anonymous arguments.  I don't understand why you say that "they have to prove a negative regarding disproving such vernacular."  That is just silly.  They either have the evidence or they don't.  I would welcome such evidence and even pay good money for it.  But, where is it?

24 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

So the argument really reduces down to who has the burden of proof. They simply feel they have to establish it as plausible someone spoke like that and would note that what you demand is impossible.

I'm not sure that's true.

A agree with you:  It is not true that my "demand is impossible."  It entails standard scholarship.

24 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

And while it's not apologetics to note the phenomena, to say that the text was written in the 16th century is an apologetic argument that goes beyond what Carmack's arguments could possibly establish. Carmack has at best shown it uses aspects of 16th century ways of speaking. As soon as you say, Joseph didn't write it, you're doing apologetics.

Again, you are being utterly silly.  There is nothing apologetic about stating the fact that Joseph could not have written the Book of Mormon.  That is simple fact, based on good evidence.  It may be disconcerting, but it is the conclusion of basic, scientific research.  No one wanted it, nor did they predict it.  It is an odd conclusion, and does not fit my own preconceptions.  I would be much happier with it having been translated by Joseph Smith, which is what I have argued for most of my life.  I had to do a double-take when confronted by the Carmack analysis.  Rejecting Carmack is akin to rejecting human-caused global warming:  It may not make you happy, but it is a fact.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

That's very interesting. I didn't know it was you and not Skousen who did that. I'd been in Skousen's work room on the project several times in the early 90's. It was very impressive to see. You deserve a lot of praise for getting that project off the ground.

Royal took over the Project in 1988 and has done a wonderful job.  You can see the second edition of my initial 3-volume Book of Mormon Critical Text (1986-87) online at https://publications.mi.byu.edu/periodical/orig-farms-bom-critical-text/ .

[clarkgoble]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Royal took over the Project in 1988 and has done a wonderful job.  You can see the second edition of my initial 3-volume Book of Mormon Critical Text (1986-87) online at https://publications.mi.byu.edu/periodical/orig-farms-bom-critical-text/ .

I actually bought a copy on my mission. I had it for years until a basement flood a year ago ruined it. I had the translators guide of all the tropes and figures of speech as well. (That was where I first learned of the interspersion in Rev 2-3 -- quite the thing to have in a translation guide) I actually loved that guide and missed losing it as well.

Edited August 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

43 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I see that you have carefully ignored the actual evidence from Joseph Smith's own time and place (I cited Fanny Trollope).

I think you missed my point - that it wasn't comprehensive. (At least I don't see how it could be - at best it'd always be a survey) The problem is that it's not just about Joseph's time and place but the background of the people who happened to live near him who might not have been from there originally.

Quote

 I did not suggest that we should rely on 20th century studies of 20th century dialects, and did not refer to them in any way.  The sincere scholar looks at the books and newspapers from Joseph's own time and place, and doesn't bring in lame objections.  And, yes, the burden of proof is on those making tendentious claims.

Well I think we just disagree on burden of proof here. I think those claiming it is purely a 16th century translation have that burden of proof, not those skeptical of the claim. Having common 16th century linguistic features simply isn't the same as being a 16th century translation.

Quote

Then, by all means, let them come forth with the evidence.  Let them flesh out their anonymous arguments.  I don't understand why you say that "they have to prove a negative regarding disproving such vernacular."  That is just silly.  They either have the evidence or they don't.  I would welcome such evidence and even pay good money for it.  But, where is it?

Again, the issue is the burden of proof. There are two different issues at play. First what is established in a scholarly fashion and then the broader issue of what is seen as a problem. Clearly critics don't see 16th century linguistic features as a problem. You think they should. All I'm saying is it helps to understand why they don't see it as a problem. i.e. try to look at the evidence from their perspective

Quote

Again, you are being utterly silly.  There is nothing apologetic about stating the fact that Joseph could not have written the Book of Mormon. That is simple fact, based on good evidence.

Yeah. Look I'm a strong believer and I love apologetics. But I don't think you're going to get a lot of agreement with people that your claim isn't an apologetic claim. Further while it's a claim I'm extremely sympathetic to, I'd never remotely say it is strongly established. There are lots of things that make it seem extremely implausible to me that Joseph could have written the Book of Mormon. I completely understand why many people see it differently, even after examining the same evidence I look at. 

Now to me, writing style matters a great deal and it's evidence against Joseph being the author. I don't think critics have fully explained away that evidence. Yet it is at best part of a circumstantial case IMO.

Edited August 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think you missed my point - that it wasn't comprehensive. (At least I don't see how it could be) The problem is that it's not just about Joseph's time and place but the background of the people who happened to live near him who might not have been from there originally.

That doesn't make a lick of sense, Clark.  If one wants to claim that there was an Early Modern English dialect in that region in Joseph's day, he needs to marshal his sources and show it.  You haven't looked at the available sources at all.  I have.  No such dialect is there.  I would be very happy to learn otherwise.

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well I think we just disagree on burden of proof here. I think those claiming it is purely a 16th century translation have that burden of proof, not those skeptical of the claim. Having common 16th century linguistic features simply isn't the same as being a 16th century translation.

Carmack has spent over 4 years in due diligence on this matter (his publication of detailed research began in 2014, and I can provide a full bibliography for you, if you want).  Again, this was basic research, not apologetics -- which you seem unable to define accurately.  No one could have foreseen the conclusions which would come from that research.  All of us are very surprised.  Some are appalled.  Some are in denial.  Perhaps we have here the 5 stages of grief.  

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again, the issue is the burden of proof. There are two different issues at play. First what is established in a scholarly fashion and then the broader issue of what is seen as a problem. Clearly critics don't see 16th century linguistic features as a problem. You think they should.

On the contrary, I don't think that so-called "critics" should "see 16th century linguistic features as a problem."  Where did that come from?  The only problem I see is their automatic, unsupported denial that the 16th century dialect is extinct by Joseph's time, and the burden of proof is definitely upon them to demonstrate that it was still a living dialect in the 19th century.

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

All I'm saying is it helps to understand why they don't see it as a problem. i.e. try to look at the evidence from their perspective

Yeah. Look I'm a strong believer and I love apologetics. But I don't think you're going to get a lot of agreement with people that your claim isn't an apologetic claim. Further while it's a claim I'm extremely sympathetic to, I'd never remotely say it is strongly established. There are lots of things that make it seem extremely implausible to me that Joseph could have written the Book of Mormon. I completely understand why many people see it differently, even after examining the same evidence I look at. 

Reporting of the results of basic research is unrelated to apologetics, and I can't imagine why anyone would misunderstand that.  I have carefully archived the objections of some on this board who have specifically doubted the Carmack research in the past, and who have provided detailed reasons.  However, I have yet to find a valid objection.  If you have any, I would be happy to hear them.

[Dexter Eli]

Many of you impress me with your detailed knowledge on so many different aspects of the BOM. 

I am a simple man. What I don't understand (for those who don't believe the BOM is literally true), how do you then believe JS is a true prophet? It's not like JS claimed the BOM was NOT literally and historically true. In fact, he was pretty adamant about it being the most correct of any book on earth. I can also guess how Brigham Young would have reacted to the idea that the BOM is inspired but not historically accurate. So how can it be inspired by God, and JS be a true prophet of God, if it's not literally true. 

[3DOP]

19 minutes ago, Dexter Eli said:

Many of you impress me with your detailed knowledge on so many different aspects of the BOM. 

I am a simple man. What I don't understand (for those who don't believe the BOM is literally true), how do you then believe JS is a true prophet? It's not like JS claimed the BOM was NOT literally and historically true. In fact, he was pretty adamant about it being the most correct of any book on earth. I can also guess how Brigham Young would have reacted to the idea that the BOM is inspired but not historically accurate. So how can it be inspired by God, and JS be a true prophet of God, if it's not literally true. 

Is it time to tell the missionaries the truth about Book of Mormon ahistoricity? How does that sell on the street? That now, according to the internet, but not Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon isn't historical? Nevermind the 19th Century. Are "ahistorical Mormons" following the prophets of the 21st Century? Are LDS Apostles leading the way? Or is it modernist academia leading you astray?

Edited August 11, 2017 by 3DOP

[Dexter Eli]

4 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Is it time to tell the missionaries the truth about Book of Mormon ahistoricity? How does that sell on the street? That now, according to the internet, but not Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon isn't historical? Nevermind the 19th Century. Are "ahistorical Mormons" following the prophets of the 21st Century? Are LDS Apostles leading the way? Or is it modernist academia leading you astray?

You are asking me? I'm asking a question. I'm asking active members who don't believe the BOM is literally true how they still believe JS is a real prophet. 

[3DOP]

Just now, Dexter Eli said:

You are asking me? I'm asking a question. I'm asking active members who don't believe the BOM is literally true how they still believe JS is a real prophet. 

Sorry for the confusion, Dexter. I am not asking you. I second your invitation to active members who disagree with Joseph Smith to expand on their views. I doubt that they are even led by 21st Century prophets.

[Dexter Eli]

3 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Sorry for the confusion, Dexter. I am not asking you. I second your invitation to active members who disagree with Joseph Smith to expand on their views. I doubt that they are even led by 21st Century prophets.

Gotcha, thanks.