"Inspired Fiction" v. The Plates & The Witnesses

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

Another naturalistic explanation proposed by Jan Shipps 44 years ago is that, "in connection with his money-digging activities, [Joseph] actually found some Indian artifacts . . . [that] inspired the writing of the Book of Mormon" (see Jan Shipps, "The Prophet Puzzle: Suggestions Leading Toward a More Comprehensive Interpretation of Joseph Smith," Journal of Mormon History 1 [1974]: 11).

What kind of artifact? Pottery shards, bones, shells with inscriptions??

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I hate to be the party pooper, but there is another important angle that is being ignored. Even if JS did truly have ancient Nephite plates, there is little to no reason to believe that he got the translation correct. In fact there are several cases that suggest he got the translation wrong.

Case #1: JS translated some hieroglyphics  from the Egyptian papyri and produced a little known text that began the story of a princess Katumin from Egypt (http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/valuable-discovery-circa-early-july-1835/7). Both the original hieroglyphics and the translation are included in the resulting document, and from what I understand, the translation has nothing to do with the hieroglyphics and the princess and other aspects of the translation appear to have never existed.

Case #2: JS offered a translation of a couple passages of the Book of Mormon into Hebrew at a meeting in Kirtland prior to his Hebrew studies. The text he produced does not appear to relate to Hebrew at all. The document copied by both Oliver Cowdery and Frederick G Williams is titled Questions Answered in Hebrew (http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-2-document-2a-characters-copied-by-oliver-cowdery-circa-1835-1836/1#source-note).

Case #3: JS translated strings of  heiroglyphics on Facsimiles 2 and 3 from the Egyptian papyri. It appears that his translation of the characters does not relate to the actual heiroglyphics at all.

These are three examples where JS translated and we have both the source and his translation. All three demonstrate that JS didn't actually translate the source language into any semblance of its meaning, and instead his translation is something else entirely.

I know virtually no one here who believes that the translations were literal or even translations in their conventional sense.

For me it's all pure revelation with an incredible philosophical base.

I'm perfectly fine with the idea that everything was revealed completely., Or put another way that Joseph wrote it all believing he was actually translating through the Seer Stone.

[Nevo]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

But that does not account for the artifact he did have (unless Shipps was proposing that Joseph found an artifact that answered to the physical description of the Plates - does she?).

Yes, I think Shipps was raising the possibility that Joseph's gold plates were an "Indian artifact" discovered in the course of money-digging at Cumorah.

I don't find that explanation very likely, but then nothing about the Book of Mormon seems very likely—every explanation for its origin is implausible on its face. As I have mentioned before on this board, I have no confidence that the Book of Mormon is historical. I find the arguments against historicity to be more persuasive than the arguments for historicity. But I'm nevertheless in awe of it. As Grant Hardy has observed, "very few . . . texts come to be regard by millions of believers as sacred and authoritative and then, through translations, gain readers and adherents beyond their culture of origin." I think of the people whose lives have been completely transformed by it—not only historical figures like Oliver Cowdery, Parley P. Pratt, and Brigham Young, whose conversion stories never fail to move me, but even some close to me: my convert mother, for instance, or my convert stepfather who loved and treasured it his whole adult life and always carried a copy with him to hand out to strangers. It really does change lives. And, when I put off the natural man a little, I find its call to "come unto Christ and be perfected in him" resonates with me too. I can't make sense of it as an ancient text, but neither can I deny its spiritual power.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Nevo

[Bernard Gui]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The physical characteristics of the metal of which the Plates were composed is, as you say, interesting.  It would be interesting to see if we could fabricate plates made of materials that would have been available to Joseph Smith, but which also answer to the descriptions from the various witnesses (as to thickness, malleability, color, etchings, etc.).

Thanks,

-Smac

Such as.....?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

My skeptical side can see all kinds of conceivable chicanery happening to rather simple minded people.

Same here.  But what my skeptical side cannot see is God ratifying / endorsing / commanding the wholesale and pervasive and fundamental "chicanery" which seems to be part and parcel of the "Inspired Fiction" theory.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 24, 2017 by smac97

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Such as.....?

Dunno.  Vogel and Brodie and others have proposed that Joseph Smith fabricated the plates, and that these fabrications were apparently good enough to trick numerous witnesses who both saw and examined and handled and "hefted" the plates.

So we have a pretty good idea as to 19-century metallurgical techniques that Joseph could have used.  It would be interesting to see if a convincing set of plates could be fabricated using those techniques.

If I had the time . . .

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

We have the complete contents of Strang's plates, to place alongside a translation - and we can see exactly what the correspondence is between the two, and why this correspondence refutes the alleged claims about them. And this evidence is much stronger (and much more convincing) than any statement by any number of witnesses.

What correspondence between Strang's plates and his translation refutes the claims?

[Benjamin Seeker]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I know virtually no one here who believes that the translations were literal or even translations in their conventional sense.

For me it's all pure revelation with an incredible philosophical base.

I'm perfectly fine with the idea that everything was revealed completely., Or put another way that Joseph wrote it all believing he was actually translating through the Seer Stone.

I'm responding to the mainstream position that JS' BOM translation represents historical characters and events. For example, my examples above show JS' translations creating several characters that appear to not be historical, including princess Katumin, her father, and Shulem from facsimile 3. 

Also, the OP claims that there was a close relationship between the plate text and the translation at times. I'm also addressing that claim. I'm also showing why believing the BOM text isn't historical, even with physical plates attested by spiritual and mundane experiences, is a reasonable belief as it aligns with what we can observe about other instances of JS translation where we have the source and the translation.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Do you know any religion that provide Persuasive evidence?

Persuasive evidence for what? Here we are talking about evidence for the existence of the plates that Joseph claimed contained the Book of Mormon text. My reply to your comment was parried with another question. Providing persuasive evidence to rebut the many witness accounts is the problem that is being addressed, but seemingly not very well.

Glenn

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Dunno.  Vogel and Brodie and others have proposed that Joseph Smith fabricated the plates, and that these fabrications were apparently good enough to trick numerous witnesses who both saw and examined and handled and "hefted" the plates.

So we have a pretty good idea as to 19-century metallurgical techniques that Joseph could have used.  It would be interesting to see if a convincing set of plates could be fabricated using those techniques.

If I had the time . . .

I did spend the time a while back when Vogel suggested it. First, it was not easy to come by pure tin sheets. Most of what we use today is tinplate, i.e., tin on steel which was not available to Joseph. When I got some, I tried working with it, making some small sheets, etching, etc., but it was very difficult. The sheet was not pliable. When the sheets were rubbed, they sounded like metallic scraping, not the rustle of paper. That's pretty much it for what would have been readily available, so I'm convinced for myself that Joseph didn't fabricate the plates out of tin. ASAIK, there are no other candidates....silver? No need to treasure seeking if you have that much silver. Thin lead sheets are possible, but they are not the color of gold and would be very heavy. I don't know if copper and zinc were readily available in upstate New York at the time. Tin would have been the most accessible and affordable metal, I believe.

Any metallurgists out there?

Edited September 24, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[strappinglad]

I had a thought yesterday. If the presence of Early modern English in the BoM implies a previous translation , maybe Joseph did a tight translation of a loose translation or visa versa . Ya , I know , I should stop thinking.

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Dunno.  Vogel and Brodie and others have proposed that Joseph Smith fabricated the plates, and that these fabrications were apparently good enough to trick numerous witnesses who both saw and examined and handled and "hefted" the plates.

So we have a pretty good idea as to 19-century metallurgical techniques that Joseph could have used.  It would be interesting to see if a convincing set of plates could be fabricated using those techniques.

If I had the time . . .

I did spend the time a while back when Vogel suggested it. First, it was not easy to come by pure tin sheets. Most of what we use today is tinplate, i.e., tin on steel which was not available to Joseph. When I got some, I tried working with it, making some small sheets, etching, etc., but it was very difficult. The sheet was not pliable. When the sheets were rubbed, they sounded like metallic scraping, not the rustle of paper. That's pretty much it for what would have been readily available, so I'm convinced for myself that Joseph didn't fabricate the plates out of tin. ASAIK, there are no other candidates....silver? No need to treasure seeking if you have that much silver. Thin lead sheets are possible, but they are not the color of gold and would be very heavy. I don't know if copper and zinc were readily available in upstate New York at the time. Tin would have been the most accessible and affordable metal, I believe.

Any metallurgists out there?

If you believe Strang was a con artist, then he has already demonstrated that it is possible. He even left the plates he found in the Hill of Promise out for examination, and convinced many.

Whatever argument that might be used to discredit Strang could be used to discredit Smith. Whatever argument that might be used to validate Smith could be used to validate Strang. The stories are too much alike to say one is true and the other false.

 

 

[Atheist Mormon]

9 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Persuasive evidence for what?

You summed it up pretty much Glenn. There's nothing to prove or disprove.....This is not a life in a regular day's sphere, where (for example) scientists revel in falsifying/disproving colleague's findings or duplicating the results of experiments as valid.... In this realm the only thing one can rely on is Faith, if you have faith you are OK,  if you are a skeptic there's no place in it for you.

[Atheist Mormon]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Same here.  But what my skeptical side cannot see is God ratifying / endorsing / commanding the wholesale and pervasive and fundamental "chicanery" which seems to be part and parcel of the "Inspired Fiction" theory.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sorry to disappoint you but it happened thousands of time in Planets history...Look at the Catholic church, Religion of Islam...........

[Glenn101]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I did spend the time a while back when Vogel suggested it. First, it was not easy to come by pure tin sheets. Most of what we use today is tinplate, i.e., tin on steel which was not available to Joseph. When I got some, I tried working with it, making some small sheets, etching, etc., but it was very difficult. The sheet was not pliable. When the sheets were rubbed, they sounded like metallic scraping, not the rustle of paper. That's pretty much it for what would have been readily available, so I'm convinced for myself that Joseph didn't fabricate the plates out of tin. ASAIK, there are no other candidates....silver? No need to treasure seeking if you have that much silver. Thin lead sheets are possible, but they are not the color of gold and would be very heavy. I don't know if copper and zinc were readily available in upstate New York at the time. Tin would have been the most accessible and affordable metal, I believe.

Any metallurgists out there?

Well, there is always the possibility of gold. That is malleable enough. After all with all of that treasure seeking experience that Joseph had it would have been easy enough for him to use his seer stone and find enough gold to make those plates. He could also have used the seer stone to find an ancient stone or such with the characters that he produced for Martin Harris to take to Charles Anthon.

Glenn

[Benjamin McGuire]

Smac writes:

Quote

Could you elaborate on the emphasized bit above?  I am interested in what you have to say.

I'll try to avoid the larger discussion that stands behind this. Let me know if you want more of that backdrop.

I think that there are lots of ways that you could envision the text of the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction. It's a lot about what the purpose of the text is, and the way that it is intended to be used (in the lingo, I have suggested in the past that this can be understood in terms of the "locutionary act" of the Book of Mormon in contrast with its "illocutionary act"). But how do we understand Moroni?

The critics will simply suggest that Moroni is fictional (and doesn't really exist). And so it's not an issue here.

The believers in the Book of Mormon as an authentic history will understand Moroni to be the author of the gold plates, and understand them in this context. And this is pretty straight forward.

But those who are believers who think the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction? Well then is Moroni the author of the Gold Plates (as a work of fiction), who is deceiving Joseph and company into believing that it is an authentic historical work? Is Moroni really a part of an illusion presented to Joseph Smith (and company) by God to help them accept the Book of Mormon as an authentic history (even though it is merely inspired fiction)? Is Moroni a fiction invented by Joseph Smith as a way of convincing others that his morality fable should be understood in some way as an authentic ancient text (this is getting pretty close to the critical view isn't it)? On some level, there is this conflict between establishing a text through deception and trying to understand the text as scripture and carrying God's intentions toward us (the readers). If Joseph Smith had simply encountered the plates (without Moroni) or if Joseph Smith had simply translated without the plates, this issue might not exist. But we have a Moroni, and we have a Moroni who claims to be an author of the text and part of that text that he is the author of is autobiographical. And this complicates the idea that the book could be inspired fiction immensely.

Is that what you were hoping for?

[Benjamin McGuire]

CV75 writes:

Quote

A key that I have found extremely helpful in resonating (conversing, as you describe it, and most importantly, conversing spiritually) with the author of scripture is this advice from Elder McConkie:

“It takes a prophet to understand a prophet, and every faithful member of the Church should have “the testimony of Jesus” which “is the spirit of prophecy.”” https://www.lds.org/ensign/1973/10/ten-keys-to-understanding-isaiah?lang=eng

If we are resonating with Moroni then the text on the plates must be his abridged history, per his instructions. If we are resonating with Joseph Smith, the text must also be a history according to his word. With whom does the competing ‘triangulation’ identify and converse as the author of a verisimilitude?

Meaning comes in hierarchies.

What I mean by this is that there are many different meanings that can be associated with any text. And in any particular context, we value one specific meaning over the others. We can list some of these potential meanings. The one we most often put at the top of the list would be the intentions of the person who was the author of a text (using the notion of an author in a non-specialized sense). The best way to use a statement in a polemical context sometimes is an issue (we often take stuff out of context, right?). With scripture, we see lots of different ways to interpret it. We might look at a historical-critical context to talk about what it meant when it was first given (we can talk in this way about the difference between first readers and later readers). We might discuss scripture in terms of likening them unto ourselves. Or (and this somewhat overlaps the last one) we might talk about interpreting scripture so that it is in harmony with other passages of scripture, right?

The fact that we create these hierarchies of meaning isn't itself particularly unusual. In fact, we may well come to different meanings in different contexts (whether the context may determine a different hierarchy). This is normal - where we run into problems (as I have noted before) is when we claim that there is only one valid reading of a text, or when we fail to distinguish between these different meanings, and claim that our local reading is exactly what that original author had in mind when he wrote. This sort of thing always creates misreadings of a text.

When McConkie talks about the keys of reading Isaiah, he has in mind one very particular sort of value for meaning at the top of his hierarchy. But, this meaning isn't the original intentions of Isaiah, and it isn't the way that the first readers would have read it. And it is much more in line with this idea of harmonizing scripture or likening it unto ourselves.

 

I don't actually believe what McConkie writes in the statement you quote - because it substitutes something that isn't necessarily appropriate to substitute. It carries with it this idea that a prophet's message is somehow perfect and inspired and that we can understand the prophet if we become one ourselves. The prophet in this sense becomes the actual representation of God's will and God's intentions. I reject this. This isn't what we see in the Book of Mormon when Lehi and Nephi both experience the vision of the Tree of Life. The vision isn't the same. The interpretation isn't the same. The message is the same. But because it is experienced, it is filtered through that experience (and Nephi and Lehi experience it quite differently - as Nephi explicitly tells us). If we were to experience the vision, it wouldn't be a few differences that we might label as minor, it would be vastly different. While Nephi and Lehi experienced differences, they were actually quite similar - sharing a language, a socio-economic place, and understanding of scripture, and so on. We don't share any of those things - and even if we were a prophet, if we experienced the same thing, it would be incomprehensible at the same level of understanding. So God would give us an experience that is tailored to our own place. And in receiving the vision of the Tree of Life, we wouldn't so much come to understand Lehi (or Nephi), we would come to understand the message and intention of God.

In the same way, Nephi doesn't give his people an Isaiah that is Isaiah. He tells them to liken Isaiah unto themselves. He tells us (his audience in the Book of Mormon) that he has actually intentionally prevented his descendants from having the tools to understand Isaiah as Isaiah intended his message to be understood. He is forcing them to recontextualize Isaiah to make Isaiah relevant to them without that knowledge. Can we really call this understanding Isaiah? Only as long as we appropriately label what we are doing in our hierarchy of meaning. And if what we mean by this is that when we experience revelation, we come to understand what it means to be a prophet (that is, by becoming a prophet, we come to understand what being a prophet means), I can agree with this, but I certainly don't think this is what McConkie meant.

In particular, when McConkie deals with 2 Nephi 25 (which I have written about myself), he misunderstands the context. As a prophet, I don't think he understands Nephi (and certainly not the way that I do, and that I feel inspired about using that personal revelation as a guide). The funny thing in his talk was what he left out. He wrote:

Quote

“The words of Isaiah,” Nephi said, “… are plain unto all those that are filled with the spirit of prophecy.” (2 Ne. 25:4.) This is the sum and substance of the whole matter and an end to all controversy where discovering the mind and will of the Lord is concerned.

And what does he leave out?

Quote

Wherefore, hearken, O my people, which are of the house of Israel, and give ear unto my words; for because the words of Isaiah are not plain unto you, nevertheless they are plain unto all those that are filled with the spirit of prophecy. But I give unto you a prophecy, according to the spirit which is in me; wherefore I shall prophesy according to the plainness which hath been with me from the time that I came out from Jerusalem with my father; for behold, my soul delighteth in plainness unto my people, that they may learn.

And Nephi tells us why they aren't plain, right? He tells us: "For I, Nephi, have not taught them many things concerning the manner of the Jews; … But behold, I, Nephi, have not taught my children after the manner of the Jews. "
At any rate, what fascinates me is what Nephi does next (he is illustrating what he means when he talks about likening scripture). As I wrote ( https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/nephi-a-postmodernist-reading/ 69-71):

Quote

Perhaps the most interesting example of Nephi’s interpretive strategies in action occurs in 2 Nephi 26–27. There we have much of Isaiah 29 incorporated into Nephi’s text. However, Nephi’s rendition changes several parts of Isaiah and intersperses it with additional text and commentary. In many ways, Nephi’s presentation resembles a pesher on Isaiah.30 But, when we see where Nephi is pulling the rest of his text from, our perspective changes: Nephi remakes Isaiah’s words into his own prophecy. The narrative unit begins with Nephi’s description in verse 14: “But behold, I prophesy unto you concerning the last days; concerning the days when the Lord God shall bring these things forth unto the children of men.” It’s easy to see the entire verse as an introduction of sorts. It is certainly punctuated that way. However, Nephi has already started the presentation of his prophecy which begins with “Concerning the days when … .” Nephi continues with this passage in verse 15:

After my seed and the seed of my brethren shall have dwindled in unbelief, and shall have been smitten by the Gentiles; yea, after the Lord God shall have camped against them round about, and shall have laid siege against them with a mount, and raised forts against them; and after they shall have been brought down low in the dust, even that they are not, yet the words of the righteous shall be written, and the prayers of the faithful shall be heard, and all those who have dwindled in unbelief shall not be forgotten. (2 Nephi 26:15)

After the first bit, the text is modified and taken from Isaiah 29:3–4a. And while much of this text comes from Isaiah 29, the rest comes from 1 Nephi 13:34–35, and it progresses through that text:

the Lord God shall bring these things forth (2 Nephi 26:14)

I will bring forth unto them (1 Nephi 13:34)

After my seed and the seed of my brethren shall have dwindled in unbelief (2 Nephi 26:15)

after thy seed shall be destroyed, and dwindle in unbelief, and also the seed of thy brethren (1 Nephi 13:35)

and shall have been smitten by the Gentiles (2 Nephi 26:15)

and smitten them by the hand of the Gentiles (1 Nephi 13:34)

They shall write the things which shall be done among them (2 Nephi 26:17)

they shall write many things which I shall minister unto them (1 Nephi 13:35)

In recognizing the earlier text from Nephi being used here, our perspective shifts. We are no longer reading just a commentary on Isaiah. Rather, we are reading a commentary on Nephi’s prophecy. Instead of Nephi’s using his own language to comment on Isaiah, he uses the language of Isaiah to comment on his own earlier text. Nephi understands that his own prophecy is not about Jerusalem (as Isaiah 29 is). He even perhaps recognizes that the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy may never be verified for many of his descendants (they don’t get confirmation of the fall of Jerusalem until the Nephites discover Zarahemla and the Mulekites). In using Isaiah to interpret his own text, Nephi has given them an entirely different framework for understanding Isaiah — one based on the premise of likening the scriptures unto themselves. And this happens not in a rather simple way but in a radical repurposing of Isaiah’s text.31 What Nephi does in this narrative unit is to give us an example of reading, both by likening the scriptures unto himself and by invoking the spirit of prophecy.

 

Yes, Nephi ends up providing an understanding of Isaiah. But it isn't an understanding of Isaiah that Isaiah intended. And this language that McConkie uses (of using Nephi to understand Isaiah) blurs the distinction between these very different meanings that exist.

Being verisimilar means that it looks (and sounds) authentic. But if we are reapplying that context to our own experience, then our meaning isn't historically authentic. It is a modern creation (even if we give it the trappings of something ancient). To what extent does the Book of Mormon faithfully provide us with a history (of which our understanding is incredibly limited - just as Isaiah's context is limited with respect to Isaiah)? Do we make an illicit substitution in thinking that the way that we encounter Moroni is really exactly what Moroni intended or had in mind?

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

CV75 writes:

Meaning comes in hierarchies.

What I mean by this is that there are many different meanings that can be associated with any text. And in any particular context, we value one specific meaning over the others. We can list some of these potential meanings. The one we most often put at the top of the list would be the intentions of the person who was the author of a text (using the notion of an author in a non-specialized sense). The best way to use a statement in a polemical context sometimes is an issue (we often take stuff out of context, right?). With scripture, we see lots of different ways to interpret it. We might look at a historical-critical context to talk about what it meant when it was first given (we can talk in this way about the difference between first readers and later readers). We might discuss scripture in terms of likening them unto ourselves. Or (and this somewhat overlaps the last one) we might talk about interpreting scripture so that it is in harmony with other passages of scripture, right?

The fact that we create these hierarchies of meaning isn't itself particularly unusual. In fact, we may well come to different meanings in different contexts (whether the context may determine a different hierarchy). This is normal - where we run into problems (as I have noted before) is when we claim that there is only one valid reading of a text, or when we fail to distinguish between these different meanings, and claim that our local reading is exactly what that original author had in mind when he wrote. This sort of thing always creates misreadings of a text.

When McConkie talks about the keys of reading Isaiah, he has in mind one very particular sort of value for meaning at the top of his hierarchy. But, this meaning isn't the original intentions of Isaiah, and it isn't the way that the first readers would have read it. And it is much more in line with this idea of harmonizing scripture or likening it unto ourselves.

 

I don't actually believe what McConkie writes in the statement you quote - because it substitutes something that isn't necessarily appropriate to substitute. It carries with it this idea that a prophet's message is somehow perfect and inspired and that we can understand the prophet if we become one ourselves. The prophet in this sense becomes the actual representation of God's will and God's intentions. I reject this. This isn't what we see in the Book of Mormon when Lehi and Nephi both experience the vision of the Tree of Life. The vision isn't the same. The interpretation isn't the same. The message is the same. But because it is experienced, it is filtered through that experience (and Nephi and Lehi experience it quite differently - as Nephi explicitly tells us). If we were to experience the vision, it wouldn't be a few differences that we might label as minor, it would be vastly different. While Nephi and Lehi experienced differences, they were actually quite similar - sharing a language, a socio-economic place, and understanding of scripture, and so on. We don't share any of those things - and even if we were a prophet, if we experienced the same thing, it would be incomprehensible at the same level of understanding. So God would give us an experience that is tailored to our own place. And in receiving the vision of the Tree of Life, we wouldn't so much come to understand Lehi (or Nephi), we would come to understand the message and intention of God.

In the same way, Nephi doesn't give his people an Isaiah that is Isaiah. He tells them to liken Isaiah unto themselves. He tells us (his audience in the Book of Mormon) that he has actually intentionally prevented his descendants from having the tools to understand Isaiah as Isaiah intended his message to be understood. He is forcing them to recontextualize Isaiah to make Isaiah relevant to them without that knowledge. Can we really call this understanding Isaiah? Only as long as we appropriately label what we are doing in our hierarchy of meaning. And if what we mean by this is that when we experience revelation, we come to understand what it means to be a prophet (that is, by becoming a prophet, we come to understand what being a prophet means), I can agree with this, but I certainly don't think this is what McConkie meant.

In particular, when McConkie deals with 2 Nephi 25 (which I have written about myself), he misunderstands the context. As a prophet, I don't think he understands Nephi (and certainly not the way that I do, and that I feel inspired about using that personal revelation as a guide). The funny thing in his talk was what he left out. He wrote:

And what does he leave out?

And Nephi tells us why they aren't plain, right? He tells us: "For I, Nephi, have not taught them many things concerning the manner of the Jews; … But behold, I, Nephi, have not taught my children after the manner of the Jews. "
At any rate, what fascinates me is what Nephi does next (he is illustrating what he means when he talks about likening scripture). As I wrote ( https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/nephi-a-postmodernist-reading/ 69-71):

Yes, Nephi ends up providing an understanding of Isaiah. But it isn't an understanding of Isaiah that Isaiah intended. And this language that McConkie uses (of using Nephi to understand Isaiah) blurs the distinction between these very different meanings that exist.

Being verisimilar means that it looks (and sounds) authentic. But if we are reapplying that context to our own experience, then our meaning isn't historically authentic. It is a modern creation (even if we give it the trappings of something ancient). To what extent does the Book of Mormon faithfully provide us with a history (of which our understanding is incredibly limited - just as Isaiah's context is limited with respect to Isaiah)? Do we make an illicit substitution in thinking that the way that we encounter Moroni is really exactly what Moroni intended or had in mind?

I am taking one of McConkie’s concepts about understanding Isaiah and applying it to Moroni and Joseph. They were prophets, and we “converse” with them through their writings by the same spirit in which they wrote. When we read Nephi, we do the same, however fully he pre-digested Isaiah’s material for us.

According to Joseph, Moroni told him the book is “an account of the former inhabitants of this continent,” which indicates something about what Moroni intended or had in mind. It would have been just as significant had he said it was verisimilitudinous lesson material he had written 1400 years before, based on the teachings of biblical prophets he had in his possession. I mean, people base Jedism on Star Wars, and believe in the principles while not the fantastic storyline, so an inspired religion could have been just as successful on the same basis.

Do we have examples where God designed to beguile the faithful to further His message? Assuming these accounts are not verisimilitudes, He beguiled Satan in a sense (Moses 4:6), allowed Abraham to beguile Abimelech (Genesis 20:2), and Ammon to beguile the Lamanite king (Alma 18:23), but even in principle the marks were not faithful subjects, at least at the time. He tested faithful Abraham but relieved him after a relatively short while (and was he as faithful as he was expected to be at the point of testing?), but after 187 years no LDS prophet has presented the Book of Mormon as a verisimilitude with a corresponding enhancement in the testimony of Christ or further clarification on how that helps us come into His presence.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Quote

I am taking one of McConkie’s concepts about understanding Isaiah and applying it to Moroni and Joseph. They were prophets, and we “converse” with them through their writings by the same spirit in which they wrote. When we read Nephi, we do the same, however fully he pre-digested Isaiah’s material for us.

The spirit doesn't offer us all of the contextual knowledge that we need to understand what these prophets meant and intended in the original context in which they wrote. It provides us with an understanding of what was intended in our own context. Nephi hasn't just pre-digested it. He has devoured it. He has fully digested it. And now it is something entirely different. Literary cannibalism is the term I like.

This doesn't mean that there is no need for the spirit when reading (especially when reading scripture). That same essay of mine discusses that in this way (pp 75-76):

Quote

 

The loss of expectation also helps us commit to Nephi’s strategy for reading — to read with the Spirit.

Quote

“Ehyeh imach,” says God to Moses out of the Burning Bush, “I will be with you”; and being-with is a postmodern theme, in three senses: We don’t read alone. This means, first, that the text we read is not a naked text whose meaning displays itself to anyone who would see it. It is a text that speaks in certain ways to a certain groups of people. We read with-others as part of some groups. That is a rabbinic rule of reading that is being repossessed by postmodern scholars. A second meaning is that, even when reading individually, we read-with. As shown by late modern analysts of interpretation theory, we read with presuppositions. A text doesn’t simply mean something, but means something with respect to the beliefs and pre-understandings we bring to the text. Postmodern reading may be distinguished from modern reading, however, by its assumptions that there is an ultimate presupposition without which reading is not the reading we have in mind: namely, that we are reading with-God (even if Jewish readers are not accustomed to enunciating this partnership so explicitly). This third meaning, we might say, is the biblical assumption recovered by postmodern readers. We read with others, we read with our assumptions, and we read with God’s presence.35

Reading-with becomes a dominant theme of Nephi’s text. Despite his best efforts, and his own declaration at the end that “what I have written … I esteem it as of great worth,” there is the recognition that for those who cannot read-with, “they cast many things away which are written and esteem them as things of naught” (2 Nephi 22:2–3). The Book of Mormon is something to be read-with: read-with ourselves, read-with our community of faith, and (perhaps most importantly) read-with the Spirit.

 

Continuing:

Quote

According to Joseph, Moroni told him the book is “an account of the former inhabitants of this continent,” which indicates something about what Moroni intended or had in mind. It would have been just as significant had he said it was verisimilitudinous lesson material he had written 1400 years before, based on the teachings of biblical prophets he had in his possession. I mean, people base Jedism on Star Wars, and believe in the principles while not the fantastic storyline, so an inspired religion could have been just as successful on the same basis.

Do we have examples where God designed to beguile the faithful to further His message? Assuming these accounts are not verisimilitudes, He beguiled Satan in a sense (Moses 4:6), allowed Abraham to beguile Abimelech (Genesis 20:2), and Ammon to beguile the Lamanite king (Alma 18:23), but even in principle the marks were not faithful subjects, at least at the time. He tested faithful Abraham but relieved him after a relatively short while (and was he as faithful as he was expected to be at the point of testing?), but after 187 years no LDS prophet has presented the Book of Mormon as a verisimilitude with a corresponding enhancement in the testimony of Christ or further clarification on how that helps us come into His presence.

This is more or less the point I was making. We can find all sorts of ways to deal with other aspects of this. But with Moroni, there is a real connection to the historical element of the whole thing. And if you don't believe the Book of Mormon is historical, then Moroni must in some way also be a fiction.

[CV75]

29 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The spirit doesn't offer us all of the contextual knowledge that we need to understand what these prophets meant and intended in the original context in which they wrote. It provides us with an understanding of what was intended in our own context. Nephi hasn't just pre-digested it. He has devoured it. He has fully digested it. And now it is something entirely different. Literary cannibalism is the term I like.

This doesn't mean that there is no need for the spirit when reading (especially when reading scripture). That same essay of mine discusses that in this way (pp 75-76):

Continuing:

This is more or less the point I was making. We can find all sorts of ways to deal with other aspects of this. But with Moroni, there is a real connection to the historical element of the whole thing. And if you don't believe the Book of Mormon is historical, then Moroni must in some way also be a fiction.

"Converse" with the author is a concept you introduced into the discussion so I've been going with it. But reading is a one-way conversation (the author speaking to us); even in reading scripture with the Spirit as intermediary as we seek answers/ask questions, the message becomes the Lord's, not the author's. The "with" is ultimately what we bring with us to the table as the reader of something the author probably does not know we have or expect to have a two-way discussion about.*

I think the author (whether as abridger to translator) of the Book of Mormon is rather saying, "Come walk with me by the Spirit." Now he could also add, "...through the gleanings of my history"  or "...through the gleanings of my history through a parable (or verisimilitude)." Going from what Joseph Smith reported to be the case, it seems to be the former, invited by the abridger.

What do you see as the ramifications of Moroni being a fiction?

* Is this why your replies refer to posters in the second person?

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

*Shrug*

I think the conversation isn't going anywhere.

So carry on.

[smac97]

17 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I hate to be the party pooper, but there is another important angle that is being ignored. Even if JS did truly have ancient Nephite plates, there is little to no reason to believe that he got the translation correct.

What are your thoughts about this portion of the Testimony of the Three Witnesses:

Quote

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true.

Are you suggesting that God the Witnesses that Joseph Smith had translated the Plates "by the gift and power of God," but that he nevertheless "got the translation wrong"?  Not small, here-and-there kinds of errors, but categorically, substantively, irretrievably wrong?

And what about D&C 20:8 (referencing Joseph Smith): "And {Jesus Christ} gave him {Joseph Smith} power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon."

And D&C 135:3 ("Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it. In the short space of twenty years, he has brought forth the Book of Mormon, which he translated by the gift and power of God...").

And AoF 1:8 ("We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.").

So in the absence of the Plates, what evidence do you have to substantiate your suggestion that "there is little to no reason to believe that he got the translation correct?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[Benjamin McGuire]

Smac,

In your opinion, what does "by the gift and power of God" mean?

This phrase gets used a lot. Joseph Smith wrote in 1833:

"The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians; having been found through the ministration of an holy angel, and translated into our own language by the gift and power of God."

The preface to the Book of Mormon reads:

"I would inform you that I translated, by the gift and power of God, and caused to be written, one hundred and sixteen pages, the which I took from the Book of Lehi, … "

In a letter from November 1829, Oliver writes:

“And he, by a gift from God, has translated it into our language.”

There are other references. The challenge is that they are quoting from Omni verse 20:

And it came to pass in the days of Mosiah, there was a large stone brought unto him with engravings on it; and he did interpret the engravings by the gift and power of God.

Omni, of course, is the text that was translated in the very last day of translation that occurs. It is the final piece. So is this an allusion to the Book of Mormon text? And if so, doesn't this mean that we shouldn't be using it to try and identify whether or not the translation is in some way "completely accurate"? We have enough problems with the fact that the Book of Mormon reuses poor translation from the King James text to recognize that accuracy in translation probably wasn't the highest priority in producing the text of the Book of Mormon.

Because of this, I think that we can find passages that are poorly translated in the Book of Mormon. And I can discuss why the poor translation occurs (and was perhaps even necessary). And I do not think that the statement of the three witnesses in some way requires an absolutely accurate translation of the text.

Of course, I don't really think that Joseph Smith was the translator. I think he was largely a reader of the text and didn't pick the words that end up in the final product. Others who assert that Joseph was the primary translator of the Book of Mormon may have other ways to explain this issue ....

[Glenn101]

8 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Because of this, I think that we can find passages that are poorly translated in the Book of Mormon. And I can discuss why the poor translation occurs (and was perhaps even necessary). And I do not think that the statement of the three witnesses in some way requires an absolutely accurate translation of the text.

I agree with that assessment. Royal Skousen's critical text project points out very clearly taht errors can be introduced at so many stages of a dictated manuscript. The original authors of the Book of Mormon also note at different places that mistakes can be made because of the weaknesses of men and the problem with laboriously engraving the plates. While Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book, he did not imply that it is perfect. But that falls way short of an inspired fiction from a God that is not the author of confusion.

Glenn

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

What are your thoughts about this portion of the Testimony of the Three Witnesses:

Are you suggesting that God the Witnesses that Joseph Smith had translated the Plates "by the gift and power of God," but that he nevertheless "got the translation wrong"?  Not small, here-and-there kinds of errors, but categorically, substantively, irretrievably wrong?

And what about D&C 20:8 (referencing Joseph Smith): "And {Jesus Christ} gave him {Joseph Smith} power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon."

And D&C 135:3 ("Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it. In the short space of twenty years, he has brought forth the Book of Mormon, which he translated by the gift and power of God...").

And AoF 1:8 ("We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.").

So in the absence of the Plates, what evidence do you have to substantiate your suggestion that "there is little to no reason to believe that he got the translation correct?"

Thanks,

-Smac

My view of revelation, even in group experiences, is that it is context specific, meaning it's content is not necessarily objectively true because it is at least partly a product of the human brain. That means I believe that revelation can both facilitate communion with the divine and at the same time reflect human assumptions and beliefs that aren't true. So, no I don't believe God told the witnesses that JS' translation was super legit, but instead the spiritual possibilities of the universe allowed for them to have their belief in JS confirmed in a vision despite his claims, in my opinion, not being historically true. We aren't going to agree on the nature of revelation, and our views are different enough that I doubt this conversation will go anywhere.