How an Ahistorical Book of Mormon Can Still Be Scripture

[DonBradley]

I have to agree with Kevin that scholars who have examined the Book of Mormon without embracing its historicity have tended to read it rather shallowly. The tendency is to simply try to attribute authorship. Once authorship is attributed (e.g., Joseph Smith, Solomon Spalding, Sidney Rigdon), the text is often regarded as no longer bearing any close attention: it can simply be dismissed.

I don't, however, find that readers who don't embrace historicity always read the book shallowly. For example, Mark Thomas, who neither assumes historicity nor ahistoricity in his readings, takes the text quite seriously and digs to find out what it actually means, rather than merely dismissing it.

And readers who don't embrace historicity aren't the only ones who have deficits in their reading. There is a parallel problem among many historicity-embracing readers. The Book of Mormon, as has long been noted, is generally approached by believers more as a sign than as scripture. It has generally been more important to LDS scholars to demonstrate that the book is ancient than it has to figure out what it says. I wouldn't call such readings particularly fruitful, since they are agenda-driven and limit how much the text is allowed to speak for itself.

Don

 

[Benjamin Seeker]

4 hours 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. 

I'll offer a short response. In the OP I explained how the Book of Mormon functions as scripture to me. Joseph Smith functions as a prophet to me in a very similar way. First off, he was instrumental in the revelatory creation of texts that contain important spiritual truth  (as I've defined it in this thread). He taught spiritual truth and demonstrated it in his life. He set up a religious community based on said principles that continues in various forms until today. Essentially, he communed with God himself and enabled others to do so as well including myself.

[Benjamin Seeker]

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

After having this discussion I think I'm going to steer away from using the terms objective and subjective when approaching the subject. I think it will work better to describe the what elements  I'm talking about and their relationship to a person's worldview and truth as far as we understand it.

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

Sorry. I didn't remember off the top of my head, but I figured Robert would know which revelation I was talking about. So it's a revelation from March 1829, now known as D&C 5. The relevant portion reads: 

"the testimony of three Witnesses will I send forth & my word & behold whosoever beleaveth in my word him will I visit with the manifestations of my spirit & they shall be Born of me & their testimony shall also go forth & thus if the People of this Generation harden not their hearts I will work a reformation among them & I will put down all lieings & deceivings & Priest Craft & envyings & strifes & Idolatries and sorceries & all maner of Iniquities & I will establish my Church yea even the church which was taught by my Desiples"

The part about a reformation was edited out for the D&C(?) by JS.

 

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

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.

 

One of my most sacred experiences was a dream, and there was little to no question that it was a transcendent experience based solely on the dream itself. However, some real world aftermath also confirmed that conclusion. 

[champatsch]

10 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

& thus IF the People of this Generation harden not their hearts  =>  I will work a reformation among them

There is a hypothetical here.  The phrase was maintained in the 1833 Book of Commandments:

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-commandments-1833/15

It was edited out for the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants:

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835/166

Edited August 11, 2017 by champatsch

[Okrahomer]

On ‎8‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 11:50 PM, mfbukowski said:

I think it is not necessary to take sides in this type of discussion.  I see either point of view, that the BOM is literal history, or that the BOM is not literal history as acceptable to faithful LDS members.

Even those who believe in the historicity- and I would include myself in that group- accept that idea totally on faith because there is virtually no scientific evidence for the position.  Lack of evidence is not evidence that these events did not happen.   Even in the Bible, where historicity is not a factor usually. one accepts the spiritual principles based on faith.  Eyewitnesses to the crucifixion failed to accept the atonement or see it spiritually

I see very little difference spiritually between the two sides.  Both require a leap of faith, it's just about a different subject.

 

I couldn't agree more.  All should be welcomed and welcoming to all:  Come as you are!

[Glenn101]

On 8/9/2017 at 10:54 AM, hope_for_things said:

EmodE research is too new for me to critique, but honestly it makes no sense to me and I'm not convinced it is paradigm altering as you're implying.

This is an area where one must depend upon the scholars for the information. If you accept the premise that Stanford Carmack has laid out, (you would need to go back and read all of his articles on the subject), he points to a paradigm shift that probably needs to be made. Robert F. Smith notes that he is one that has been forced into a paradigm shift because of this scholarship. The critics' contention that the Early Modern English could have been found as frozen artifacts in the language in Joseph Smith's cultural environment is accompanied with zero supporting evidence. Stanford has scoured Joseph's own known writings (those that can be confidently attributed to Joseph himself and not that of a scribe), and the documents from his area and era to find such evidences. To date he has found nothing significant.

I do not think that Stanford is saying that the translation occurred during that period of time, but that the person that did the actual translation was intimately familiar with form of grammar. The main thing that one could take away from this is not it proves that the Book of Mormon is historical (your current paradigm on the question of historicity is safe on that account) but if Stanford's research is borne out it pretty much rules out Joseph Smith or any of his contemporaries as the author of the Book of Mormon.

To date there have been no linguists that I know of that have come forward to refute Stanford's findings or any evidence of Early Modern English found in Joseph's environment. This argument proffered by critics was one of the first ones that I saw come forth and Stanford has been diligent in looking into the claims. At the present it does not seem to rise to the level of plausible deniability. It maybe does rise to the level of skeptical deniability if proof is required that there was no Early Modern English used by contemporaries in Joseph Smith's environment, but that would be an unreasonable demand, i.e. to prove a negative.

As Robert noted in a discussion with Clark Goble, any such evidence would happily be evaluated.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

On 8/9/2017 at 10:54 AM, hope_for_things said:

The evidence for the breastplate or the interpreters (two stones in a bow) are very scant.  Physical plates are all Joseph would have had to manufacture really and the evidence that nobody saw that artifact uncovered, but just felt it or lifted it is interesting.  The evidence around the eight witnesses experience leaves enough ambiguity about whether or not their experience was a visionary one.

I do not understand why you assert that "nobody saw the artifact uncovered." The statement in the Book of Mormon avers that "we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship." I know that there have been efforts made to disparage those testimonies and claim that they were only visionary manifestations, but I find it hard to accept such unapolegics in the face of that statement.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

14 hours ago, DonBradley said:

I have to agree with Kevin that scholars who have examined the Book of Mormon without embracing its historicity have tended to read it rather shallowly. The tendency is to simply try to attribute authorship. Once authorship is attributed (e.g., Joseph Smith, Solomon Spalding, Sidney Rigdon), the text is often regarded as no longer bearing any close attention: it can simply be dismissed.

I don't, however, find that readers who don't embrace historicity always read the book shallowly. For example, Mark Thomas, who neither assumes historicity nor ahistoricity in his readings, takes the text quite seriously and digs to find out what it actually means, rather than merely dismissing it.

And readers who don't embrace historicity aren't the only ones who have deficits in their reading. There is a parallel problem among many historicity-embracing readers. The Book of Mormon, as has long been noted, is generally approached by believers more as a sign than as scripture. It has generally been more important to LDS scholars to demonstrate that the book is ancient than it has to figure out what it says. I wouldn't call such readings particularly fruitful, since they are agenda-driven and limit how much the text is allowed to speak for itself.

Don

 

Don, good to hear from you again. I enjoy your insights. I think that the part I have bolded is a problem for people on both sides of the aisle, apologetic and critic in that some in both camps have difficulty in agreeing on just what the text does say for itself.

Glenn

 

[Calm]

"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"

Please explain how you interpret this phrase (what you see a "reformation" entailing) and how it didn't work out, please.

[Benjamin Seeker]

4 hours ago, champatsch said:

There is a hypothetical here.  The phrase was maintained in the 1833 Book of Commandments:

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-commandments-1833/15

It was edited out for the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants:

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835/166

It's true. There is an if. However, I don't find this caveat convincing in light of God's hypothetical infinite hindsight and the phrase's 1835 removal (thanks for hunting that down).

Edited August 11, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

This is an area where one must depend upon the scholars for the information. If you accept the premise that Stanford Carmack has laid out, (you would need to go back and read all of his articles on the subject), he points to a paradigm shift that probably needs to be made. Robert F. Smith notes that he is one that has been forced into a paradigm shift because of this scholarship. The critics' contention that the Early Modern English could have been found as frozen artifacts in the language in Joseph Smith's cultural environment is accompanied with zero supporting evidence. Stanford has scoured Joseph's own known writings (those that can be confidently attributed to Joseph himself and not that of a scribe), and the documents from his area and era to find such evidences. To date he has found nothing significant.

I do not think that Stanford is saying that the translation occurred during that period of time, but that the person that did the actual translation was intimately familiar with form of grammar. The main thing that one could take away from this is not it proves that the Book of Mormon is historical (your current paradigm on the question of historicity is safe on that account) but if Stanford's research is borne out it pretty much rules out Joseph Smith or any of his contemporaries as the author of the Book of Mormon.

To date there have been no linguists that I know of that have come forward to refute Stanford's findings or any evidence of Early Modern English found in Joseph's environment. This argument proffered by critics was one of the first ones that I saw come forth and Stanford has been diligent in looking into the claims. At the present it does not seem to rise to the level of plausible deniability. It maybe does rise to the level of skeptical deniability if proof is required that there was no Early Modern English used by contemporaries in Joseph Smith's environment, but that would be an unreasonable demand, i.e. to prove a negative.

As Robert noted in a discussion with Clark Goble, any such evidence would happily be evaluated.

Glenn

I don't just accept the premises of Carmack, I have no experience dealing with him in the past, can't recall reading any of his work.  I listened to a video presentation with he and Skousen and thats about it.  Apparently Robert has found his thesis compelling, but I know a lot of historians/scholars who are skeptical.  I'm just not familiar enough with the scholarship, and it hasn't been out there long enough to be evaluated to my understanding.  

My current paradigm is that naturalistic explanations are the default position for me, and that until someone proves supernatural phenomena using an empirically sound methodology, I'm not buying into all the claims that people make for those kinds of explanations.  So just the basic premise of this EModE hypothesis, has me scratching my head because it sounds much more conspiratorial.  How could Joseph have been copying from a 16th century text on the naturalistic side.  The supernatural explanation is even more fantastic, suggesting that some other actor is involved in the 16th century translating the original BoM into 16th century language and that this actor then somehow communicated that to Joseph Smith.  There are multiple additional layers that would have to be explained in the supernatural paradigm.  

As for linguists coming forward to refute Carmack, I'm not sure there are that many linguists that have a strong interest in this subject, but perhaps I'm wrong.  I'm sure after the research gets out in the public more that it will probably be explored by all different parties.  It will be fascinating to see what creative explanations are invented to explain the point of this from a supernatural believer's perspective.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

I do not understand why you assert that "nobody saw the artifact uncovered." The statement in the Book of Mormon avers that "we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship." I know that there have been efforts made to disparage those testimonies and claim that they were only visionary manifestations, but I find it hard to accept such unapolegics in the face of that statement.

Glenn

Its not "efforts to disparage" its evidence that brings the eight witness statement into question.   Evidence to suggest that it wasn't a physical viewing, but rather it was a visionary experience similar to the three witness experience.  

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"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"

Please explain how you interpret this phrase (what you see a "reformation" entailing) and how it didn't work out, please.

Some kind of institutional reorganization is implied by the term reformation. That this institutional reformation takes place in churches is further implied by the word priestcrafts, and the deal is sealed when the text talks about the original church eatablished by Christ (another point of conflict as it's now believed that Christians operates as a part of Judaism for some time). The predicted change is suppose to come about by the testimony of the three witnesses, which infers that the Book of Mormon would be involved. As far as I understand this prophecy was not accomplished through reformation of existing institutions but by the restoration of a new/old church. One obvious interpretation of the removal of this passage is that it was originally understood how I've stated and didn't happen as expected.

[Calm]

Thank you.

I see other interpretations, but that is a probable one in my opinion.

[Benjamin Seeker]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

Thank you.

I see other interpretations, but that is a probable one in my opinion.

Agreed. I think there are other interpretations too. The editing of this example makes it an easy target for my argument, but not a shut and closed case by any means.

[Bobbieaware]

6 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

I couldn't agree more.  All should be welcomed and welcoming to all:  Come as you are!

I believe such people may participate in Church if they so desire, but they absolutely must be totally transparent with their bishops and stake presidents, making sure the priesthood leaders fully understand they believe the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction and the that Nephite prophets never existed as real people. They should also proactively admit to holding these views during temple recommended interviews. By being transparent in this way, the leaders will be properly informed to know how such people might serve in the Church.

in light of the following most solemn declaratiom from the prophet Nephi, I find this whole discussion absolutely ludicrous.

10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.

11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness. (2 Nephi 33)

 

Edited August 11, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[clarkgoble]

On 8/10/2017 at 5:59 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Again you're overlooking the argument I'm making. It's the following:

1. the analysis of dialects is based upon surveys not censuses of people and are limited in number

2. by the nature of a survey they may thus miss dialects

3. a critic (not me) could then point to this gap.

Note that this is exactly the kind argument apologists make with regards to metal and for some apologists technology such as bows or to animals like horses. So if we're being honest apologists (and I recognize you don't think you're doing that) then we have to acknowledge what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Quote

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.

I'm distinguishing between the research and the application of the research. One is more strongly argued than the other.

Again, if you have a bibliography for Carmack or anyone else comparing the elements he found with reprinted popular literature from the 16th century that could have been in Joseph's environment I'm all ears. I listed a few of the books I'd hoped would be checked although there are others. As I said I don't recall Carmack addressing that in any of his papers, but I certainly may have missed it or even forgotten it. I'll hold off saying more on that topic for those references. (I fully admit I've been quite busy the past years so I'm not as well up on my reading as I'd wish)

Perhaps putting it into the language/grammar thread Benjamin started would be helpful. 

Quote

However, I have yet to find a valid objection.  If you have any, I would be happy to hear them.

Again the nature of surveys is the main issue. The second issue is 16th century reprinted texts in his environment.

[Benjamin Seeker]

42 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again you're overlooking the argument I'm making. It's the following:

1. the analysis of dialects is based upon surveys not censuses of people and are limited in number

2. by the nature of a survey they may thus miss dialects

3. a critic (not me) could then point to this gap.

Note that this is exactly the kind argument apologists make with regards to metal and for some apologists technology such as bows or to animals like horses. So if we're being honest apologists (and I recognize you don't think you're doing that) then we have to acknowledge what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I'm distinguishing between the research and the application of the research. One is more strongly argued than the other.

Again, if you have a bibliography for Carmack or anyone else comparing the elements he found with reprinted popular literature from the 16th century that could have been in Joseph's environment I'm all ears. I listed a few of the books I'd hoped would be checked although there are others. As I said I don't recall Carmack addressing that in any of his papers, but I certainly may have missed it or even forgotten it. I'll hold off saying more on that topic for those references. (I fully admit I've been quite busy the past years so I'm not as well up on my reading as I'd wish)

Perhaps putting it into the language/grammar thread Benjamin started would be helpful. 

Again the nature of surveys is the main issue. The second issue is 16th century reprinted texts in his environment.

Yes, please bring this conversation to the new thread. Let's bring the Dialogue hive mind to bare on the topic.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Again you're overlooking the argument I'm making. It's the following:

1. the analysis of dialects is based upon surveys not censuses of people and are limited in number

2. by the nature of a survey they may thus miss dialects

3. a critic (not me) could then point to this gap.

Note that this is exactly the kind argument apologists make with regards to metal and for some apologists technology such as bows or to animals like horses. So if we're being honest apologists (and I recognize you don't think you're doing that) then we have to acknowledge what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I'm distinguishing between the research and the application of the research. One is more strongly argued than the other.

Applied science is not apologetics and  has nothing to do with defending some position in politics or religion.  When, for example, Socrates defends himself (his apologia) against accusations by the Athenian assembly, he is not doing basic research, and he is not reporting on it.  The BofM in this instance is being treated the same way any other book can be treated by examining the actual language and grammar -- in order to derive a date of authorship.  A purely secular exercise.

The onus is upon those making the false claim that not enough studies have been made of actual regional dialects to show that their claims are true.  This must be done by citing actual books and newspaper articles and analyzing them.  Immediate comparison with 16th century (and other periods) can then be made.  Empty claims are of no value.

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Again, if you have a bibliography for Carmack or anyone else comparing the elements he found with reprinted popular literature from the 16th century that could have been in Joseph's environment I'm all ears. I listed a few of the books I'd hoped would be checked although there are others. As I said I don't recall Carmack addressing that in any of his papers, but I certainly may have missed it or even forgotten it. I'll hold off saying more on that topic for those references. (I fully admit I've been quite busy the past years so I'm not as well up on my reading as I'd wish)

Perhaps putting it into the language/grammar thread Benjamin started would be helpful. 

Again the nature of surveys is the main issue. The second issue is 16th century reprinted texts in his environment.

By all means, feel free to cite all such claims in detail.  I have yet to see a valid objection.  Carmack has certainly compared 16th and 19th century language and grammar.  What part of that did not pass muster with you or anyone else?  How is it that the BofM is the only text from the 19th century exhibiting systematic 16th century traits?

[mfbukowski]

On 8/10/2017 at 10:06 PM, DonBradley said:

It has generally been more important to LDS scholars to demonstrate that the book is ancient than it has to figure out what it says. I wouldn't call such readings particularly fruitful, since they are agenda-driven and limit how much the text is allowed to speak for itself.

Don

 

Totally agree- excellent points!

Hi Don, good to see you here.!

[Glenn101]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Its not "efforts to disparage" its evidence that brings the eight witness statement into question.   Evidence to suggest that it wasn't a physical viewing, but rather it was a visionary experience similar to the three witness experience.  

All of that evidence is from secondary sources. The statement in the Book of Mormon while not the original (obviously) is the document that they all agreed on. It was published in every copy of the Book of Mormon from the very first. To rebut that one must provide something just a s strong, such as a written statement from the participants themselves that they did not really see and touch the plates or see the engravings of curious workmanship.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't just accept the premises of Carmack, I have no experience dealing with him in the past, can't recall reading any of his work.  I listened to a video presentation with he and Skousen and thats about it.  Apparently Robert has found his thesis compelling, but I know a lot of historians/scholars who are skeptical.  I'm just not familiar enough with the scholarship, and it hasn't been out there long enough to be evaluated to my understanding.  

My current paradigm is that naturalistic explanations are the default position for me, and that until someone proves supernatural phenomena using an empirically sound methodology, I'm not buying into all the claims that people make for those kinds of explanations.  So just the basic premise of this EModE hypothesis, has me scratching my head because it sounds much more conspiratorial.  How could Joseph have been copying from a 16th century text on the naturalistic side.  The supernatural explanation is even more fantastic, suggesting that some other actor is involved in the 16th century translating the original BoM into 16th century language and that this actor then somehow communicated that to Joseph Smith.  There are multiple additional layers that would have to be explained in the supernatural paradigm.  

As for linguists coming forward to refute Carmack, I'm not sure there are that many linguists that have a strong interest in this subject, but perhaps I'm wrong.  I'm sure after the research gets out in the public more that it will probably be explored by all different parties.  It will be fascinating to see what creative explanations are invented to explain the point of this from a supernatural believer's perspective.  

Now you have gone from being critical to just being skeptical. Stanford has published a series of papers on the findings that Royal Skousen initially discovered and which he has followed up on. The facts are not hard to follow. Stanford has researched the Early Modern English that appears in the Book of Mormon and the period(s) of time in which it was used. He also has scoured sources that might have been available to Joseph Smith with instances of Early Modern English which couls have influenced Joseph's usage as well as Joseph's own writings as well as books, newspaper articles, books, etc. from Joseph's cultural environment for instances. I do not remember all of the details at the moment, but the information is readily available if you wish to inform yourself. One does not have to be a linguist to check to see if an expression is Early Modern English. And if one has access to the Oxford English Dictionary, it can be determined the time frame when it appeared in the English language. One can also search publicly available books and documents for those phrases. It does not even require that one be a scholar with a degree in order to carry out such basic research.

There are scholars that maybe disagree with some of Stanford's conclusions, but I know of none that dispute the information he has produced. I actually tried to stay away from the supernatural aspects of the situation. What I have noted is that the strong presence of the Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon, barring some unforeseen, as of now, linguistic discovery, effectively rules out Joseph Smith or any of his contemporaries as the author. What a critic must do to have any valid basis for an argument is to find a plausible naturalistic explanation for that Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon. And again, unearthing (more) evidence that rules out Joseph as the author of the Book of Mormon is not evidence that it is historical.

Glenn

[clarkgoble]

5 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Stanford has researched the Early Modern English that appears in the Book of Mormon and the period(s) of time in which it was used. He also has scoured sources that might have been available to Joseph Smith with instances of Early Modern English which couls have influenced Joseph's usage as well as Joseph's own writings as well as books, newspaper articles, books, etc. from Joseph's cultural environment for instances. I do not remember all of the details at the moment, but the information is readily available if you wish to inform yourself.

Do you have a reference for this and what books were looked at.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The onus is upon those making the false claim that not enough studies have been made of actual regional dialects to show that their claims are true.  This must be done by citing actual books and newspaper articles and analyzing them.  Immediate comparison with 16th century (and other periods) can then be made.  Empty claims are of no value.

By all means, feel free to cite all such claims in detail.  I have yet to see a valid objection.  Carmack has certainly compared 16th and 19th century language and grammar.  What part of that did not pass muster with you or anyone else?  How is it that the BofM is the only text from the 19th century exhibiting systematic 16th century traits?

Again what 16th century texts did he compare? You said you were willing to give a bibliography on this point. I didn't see any when I looked. Not that my survey was comprehensive but I guess by your logic it's up to you to prove my survey of Carmacks writings wasn't comprehensive enough. (Grin)

 

 

[readstoomuch]

I usually  have my standard reply or input about this topic.  It got me thinking to the very first article I ever read about similar issues.  Anthony A Hutchinson`s A Mormon Midrash:  Lds Creation Narratives.  An Lds scholar who went to the Catholic University to get a doctorate in bible studies.  Wrote one of the chapters in A New Approaches to the Book of Mormon.  In searching for him I found out he knew Greg Prince well and is now an Episcopal Priest.  I first learned words like Hermeneutics and Apologetics by reading his first paper.  I didn't know why to do with what I read and it was troubling.  Articles in Dialogue can be that way though.  Speaking of Dialogue articles, Blake Ostler:  The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Document.