"Inspired Fiction" v. The Plates & The Witnesses

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

*Shrug*

I think the conversation isn't going anywhere.

So carry on.

One-way conversation is like that...

[mfbukowski]

On 9/23/2017 at 8:00 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

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.

I do not disagree with anything you are proposing above, I just question the importance of pursuing such studies since for me, they are irrelevant.

I presumed from the first time I read the Book of Mormon that it was a fable taught for spiritual purposes.  I do not see it as "fiction" in that I think that Joseph himself thought he was translating text by the "gift and power of God"

In fact I think that Joseph was similar to the prophets of old who likewise felt they were receiving messages from God.  And by that I do not mean that they were or they were not- one can only decide that for oneself!   So I have no problem seeing Joseph on the same grounds as the person or persons we call "Isaiah" or the person or persons who wrote the book of Revelation or "Moses" whether or not he was a historical individual or many individuals.   I believe there probably also there would be similar inconsistencies in what these individuals believed about what they were doing, were we in a position to interview them. And that would apply to all who are considered "prophets" in all religions.

This stuff is not logical nor is it meant to be.   It is a different kind of literature than any other.  It is like scriptures throughout the world, but for me personally, these resonate in ways the others do not.

In other words, I think one must be a little "touched in the head" to be considered a "prophet".  Possibly marginally delusional, possibly touched by genius, but definitely amazingly imaginative, creative and poetic.   I can think of "mad poets" who might come close if their writings were in the context of alleging prophet hood.

On the other hand, I think all of us have a tendency for such writing to resonate with us, and with some it resonates more than others.   I think those with whom such texts resonate have perhaps a touch of the same world view as those who write them.

You can call that "communication with the spirit" or not, depending on your own prejudices concerning the content of these texts.

As I have said, reading tea leaves, watching the ocean and other kinds of stimulation can produce a creative effect in a certain kind of mentality.

So bottom line, I think "prophecy" cannot be judged by historical standards.   It is LIKE fiction in that it certainly does not tell a story of "what actually happened" though perhaps the writer may think it does due to the power of his vision.

When I first read the Book of Abraham and the story of its translation, I said to my companion "This is great stuff!!   I don't care if he was 'translating" the pattern on his wallpaper- I love this stuff!"

I found that "this stuff" resonated deeply with my being.  It was like reading the Epistles where Paul intentionally creates Christianity out of the simple sayings of Jesus- but these stories modified Christianity in ways making it more compatible with our times today

Truly these were written for "The Latter Days" perhaps BECAUSE they were written in the latter days, but what was happening was no different than what Paul did to the church of his day- totally changing it by spiritually knowing ideas never uttered by Jesus- whom he had never met nor heard.

What is the difference between Joseph and Paul?  Or Joseph and Isaiah?

For these reasons I suppose I am not the best person with whom to discus this if you are trying to find historicity in these texts.  You won't find it- that is not what they are about.

These are magical revelations brought forth by the universe through Joseph.  They are poetry brought forth from a creative mind in the heat of revelation.

If one cannot see them that way and find them "valid" anyway, then perhaps one's world view is incompatible with finding value in them.

I have had experiences like Joseph's and I think that if one has not had such experiences oneself, one will never "get" their message.  

Edited September 25, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Benjamin Seeker]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I do not disagree with anything you are proposing above, I just question the importance of pursuing such studies since for me, they are irrelevant.

I presumed from the first time I read the Book of Mormon that it was a fable taught for spiritual purposes.  I do not see it as "fiction" in that I think that Joseph himself thought he was translating text by the "gift and power of God"

In fact I think that Joseph was similar to the prophets of old who likewise felt they were receiving messages from God.  And by that I do not mean that they were or they were not- one can only decide that for oneself!   So I have no problem seeing Joseph on the same grounds as the person or persons we call "Isaiah" or the person or persons who wrote the book of Revelation or "Moses" whether or not he was a historical individual or many individuals.   I believe there probably also there would be similar inconsistencies in what these individuals believed about what they were doing, were we in a position to interview them. And that would apply to all who are considered "prophets" in all religions.

This stuff is not logical nor is it meant to be.   It is a different kind of literature than any other.  It is like scriptures throughout the world, but for me personally, these resonate in ways the others do not.

In other words, I think one must be a little "touched in the head" to be considered a "prophet".  Possibly marginally delusional, possibly touched by genius, but definitely amazingly imaginative, creative and poetic.   I can think of "mad poets" who might come close if their writings were in the context of alleging prophet hood.

On the other hand, I think all of us have a tendency for such writing to resonate with us, and with some it resonates more than others.   I think those with whom such texts resonate have perhaps a touch of the same world view as those who write them.

You can call that "communication with the spirit" or not, depending on your own prejudices concerning the content of these texts.

As I have said, reading tea leaves, watching the ocean and other kinds of stimulation can produce a creative effect in a certain kind of mentality.

So bottom line, I think "prophecy" cannot be judged by historical standards.   It is LIKE fiction in that it certainly does not tell a story of "what actually happened" though perhaps the writer may think it does due to the power of his vision.

When I first read the Book of Abraham and the story of its translation, I said to my companion "This is great stuff!!   I don't care if he was 'translating" the pattern on his wallpaper- I love this stuff!"

I found that "this stuff" resonated deeply with my being.  It was like reading the Epistles where Paul intentionally creates Christianity out of the simple sayings of Jesus- but these stories modified Christianity in ways making it more compatible with our times today

Truly these were written for "The Latter Days" perhaps BECAUSE they were written in the latter days, but what was happening was no different than what Paul did to the church of his day- totally changing it by spiritually knowing ideas never uttered by Jesus- whom he had never met nor heard.

What is the difference between Joseph and Paul?  Or Joseph and Isaiah?

For these reasons I suppose I am not the best person with whom to discus this if you are trying to find historicity in these texts.  You won't find it- that is not what they are about.

These are magical revelations brought forth by the universe through Joseph.  They are poetry brought forth from a creative mind in the heat of revelation.

If one cannot see them that way and find them "valid" anyway, then perhaps one's world view is incompatible with finding value in them.

I have had experiences like Joseph's and I think that if one has not had such experiences oneself, one will never "get" their message.  

I love your approach. I feel like you're putting a lot of my personal thoughts into words here.

[clarkgoble]

On 9/23/2017 at 8:44 PM, mfbukowski said:

I don't understand how Vogel even gets published

Even though I fundamentally disagree with Vogel, I probably should come to his defense. He's fairly forthright in that he's assuming traditional naturalism and providing an interpretation of Joseph Smith's life in that regard. In the sense that he's forthright that this is just one way of reading the evidence I think charges of positivism towards him are unfair. (Not that anyone here is making that charge - just commenting on a common criticism) As such I think he's actually much closer to the typical Mormon writer just with a different set of ontological assumptions he's bringing to bear. I think he's found lots of interesting parallels. Yet he's not done a fantastic job of looking at their limits. But then that's true of most Mormon apologists as well.

If you start thinking of him as a kind of apologetic for the naturalist camp then I think he's writing makes a ton more sense - and more importantly can be a bit more appreciated. Again I fundamentally disagree with him but I think he gets an unfair rap. I'll confess that I've always enjoyed my discussions with him.

Edited September 25, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

16 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

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.

Isn't that true of science too? Just curious as to how you distinguish. 

18 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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 ....

What's weird is that there appears to be effort on Joseph's part (thus the comments about Oliver Cowdery's attempts) yet it's not effort in a normal sense. In at least some sense things were given to Joseph. He wasn't working out the fit between two words or concepts the way a contemporary translator would. It's quite possible to read Joseph in a mostly passive role in terms of meanings. That is he never appears to have knowledge of the underlying source. Yet we have to be careful not to assume his mind isn't involved. Despite the mysterious 15th century grammar it's likely that phrases, words and concepts of Joseph were utilized in the translation. Even if he wasn't necessarily cognizant of this. 

Edited September 25, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Benjamin McGuire]

I would approach that issue in a different way thought Clark. The translation has to be aimed at a particular audience (that is, like any other text, and author has some sense of his audience in mind when he writes), and to the extent that Joseph Smith is a member of that audience (or even representative of it), then Joseph can exert influence on the text that we get without having any significant involvement in selecting the language himself (if that makes sense).

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I would approach that issue in a different way thought Clark. The translation has to be aimed at a particular audience (that is, like any other text, and author has some sense of his audience in mind when he writes), and to the extent that Joseph Smith is a member of that audience (or even representative of it), then Joseph can exert influence on the text that we get without having any significant involvement in selecting the language himself (if that makes sense).

I think my distinction is really just between conscious involvement and the translation in some way being indexed to the content of his brain, if that makes sense.

[stemelbow]

On ‎9‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 12:21 PM, smac97 said:

I just came across a very good article: Why Were the Plates Present During the Translation of the Book of Mormon?

A few times as I read it I found my thoughts juxtaposing the reality of the Plates with the "Inspired Fiction" theory, and concluding each time that the existence of the former is fatal to the latter.  From the article:

Footnote 1 notes: "There are some reports that Joseph Smith used the plates during the translation process, but these seem to have mostly come from secondary sources."  In other words, the best evidence appears to support the theory that the Plates were not directly/physically utilized during all (or most) of the translation process.

The article proposes a three-part answer.  

First, Joseph transcribed some characters, which Martin Harris took to "several distinguished scholars" to verify the characters' authenticity.  As a result of his experience with this scholarly assessment of these transcribed characters, Martin Harris was personally convinced of the validity of Joseph's claims about those characters, so much so that he mortgaged his farm to pay for the publication of the translation of the ancient work: The Book of Mormon.  The Plates and the actual characters on them, then, seem to have played a pivotal role in the persuading of Martin Harris, and hence in the publication of the translated work.

I don't think we can get much out of this other than it appeared as if the characters that were copied appeared as if they had an ancient appearance, or connection.  I do not think this says much regarding the inspired fiction idea.   It is either the characters were good fakes, or were really coming from something ancient.  I suppose it's also possible those with whom Martin spoke with were duped, or Martin lied.  But even if they were ancient characters coming off the plates it does not mean the plates were translated into the BoM, nor that there is anything to say here about an inspired fiction idea. 

On ‎9‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 12:21 PM, smac97 said:

Second:

In other words, the relationship between the characters etched on the Plates and the resulting English text is very, very strong, even if not fully understood by Joseph (and even less by us).

That's quite a stretch, I'd say.  That Joseph could identify, at least in his mind, one page off the plates does not mean anything about the characters were understood by Joseph.  For all we know JOseph was told that the translation here was from the last sheet.  It could be he guessed at such.  But it hardly means a very, very strong, even if not fully understood conclusion, if you ask me.  Its an interesting addition to this though. 

The stretch becomes more apparent if we consider that Joseph did not look at the plates during the dictation process.  It's also possible Joseph was unable to decipher what the characters meant in English.  I know one witness suggested the characters appeared to him, before the English translation. But that is questionable based on neither he nor Joseph knowing what characters were on the plates during the dictation process.  They didn't have the plates opened to check as they went along, apparently, and they didn't, it seems, review the plates.  So if characters appeared before the English, he by this reasoning, wouldn't know if those characters were on the plates or not. 

Finally it is also quite possible Joseph didn't know.  Assumed the last plates contained the page, because ti looked short and review-like, different then the others, or something like that.  I think this is very little to pin much on. 

On ‎9‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 12:21 PM, smac97 said:

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the article addresses the probative value of the Plates as to third parties:

The article goes on to discuss other examples of divine interactions which nevertheless had constraints placed on them (like the Plates being covered/hidden):

• The Lord spoke with Moses "face to face" (Exodus 33:11), but otherwise His presence was manifested to the Children of Israel through  "a pillar of a cloud {by day} … and by night in a pillar of fire” (Exodus 13:21).
• The Brother of Jared saw and spoke directly with the Lord (Ether 3:6–20), but as for the rest of the Jaredites, “{the} Lord did go before them, and did talk with them as he stood in a cloud, and gave directions whither they should travel” (Ether 2:5).
• Eventually, others "too may one day see the resurrected body, and feel the marks of the wounds in the hands, feet, and side of Him whom we first only saw with an eye of faith (Doctrine and Covenants 88:68; 93:1)."

The article concludes with this quote from Elder Holland:

So here are my thoughts:

It is unreasonable, I think, to deny the existence of the Plates (although the provenance of the Plates is clearly still up for principled debate).

We don't have them.  It's probably unreasonable to say no plates ever existed, but since they are gone now, it is possible to say there were no ancient plates.  We can't look at them now.  We can't test them in anyway.  The witnesses are great support to the notion that plates existed, sure.  But they do nothing to help us determine if these plates still exist somewhere.  For all we know now the plates they had were fakes.  There's little to rebut that outside the witnesses. And they could have lied or been tricked. 

On ‎9‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 12:21 PM, smac97 said:

The statements from the Witnesses appear to be designed to buttress Joseph's claims for the provenance of the Plates being both ancient and miraculously preserved and discovered.

I agree with this.  The witnesses help support the claim by Joseph. 

On ‎9‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 12:21 PM, smac97 said:

The Three Witnesses speak principally as to the divine aspects of the Plates (an angel descends with the Plates, they hear a voice from heaven about translation of the Plates, etc.), and the Eight Witnesses speak principally as to the  physical/pragmatic aspects of the Plates (that they actually existed, that they had weight and mass, that they could be "hefted," etc.).

The character and possible motivations of the Witnesses is an important secondary analysis.  I think Richard Lloyd Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses does a good job of establishing the character and overall integrity of these men.  Also, this FAIR article does a good job of addressing some of the ad hoc speculations about the Witnesses that come up.

To sum up: I think it is quite difficult to reconcile the reality of the Plates and the testimony of the Witnesses with the "Inspired Fiction" theory.  However, I would be interested in reading any efforts to reconcile these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

I simply don't see anything here that argues against the inspired fiction idea.  With that said, I'm not a strong proponent of it.  It matters very little to me, but the questions raised by the whole story really do lend room for the inspired fiction idea. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Even though I fundamentally disagree with Vogel, I probably should come to his defense. He's fairly forthright in that he's assuming traditional naturalism and providing an interpretation of Joseph Smith's life in that regard. In the sense that he's forthright that this is just one way of reading the evidence I think charges of positivism towards him are unfair. (Not that anyone here is making that charge - just commenting on a common criticism) As such I think he's actually much closer to the typical Mormon writer just with a different set of ontological assumptions he's bringing to bear. I think he's found lots of interesting parallels. Yet he's not done a fantastic job of looking at their limits. But then that's true of most Mormon apologists as well.

If you start thinking of him as a kind of apologetic for the naturalist camp then I think he's writing makes a ton more sense - and more importantly can be a bit more appreciated. Again I fundamentally disagree with him but I think he gets an unfair rap. I'll confess that I've always enjoyed my discussions with him.

Well you are probably right, but I see him as THE poster boy for positivism.   I mean I think I am a naturalist as well so by my standards of naturalism I guess that makes him a positivist.  I am at least aware of other paradigms, while he seems to have blinders on to any other view of reality.   He is a bit like our friend Pete here.  As I guess I am demonstrating, people like that drive me nuts.    They do not even acknowledge that another point of view besides their own is possible.  THAT is my objection really I think.

 

[Nevo]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I would approach that issue in a different way thought Clark. The translation has to be aimed at a particular audience (that is, like any other text, and author has some sense of his audience in mind when he writes), and to the extent that Joseph Smith is a member of that audience (or even representative of it), then Joseph can exert influence on the text that we get without having any significant involvement in selecting the language himself (if that makes sense).

So who do you suppose the translator was?

As I've pointed out before (as have others), King Benjamin's sermon is full of nineteenth-century sermon language. E.g.: "Therefore, if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever. And now I saw unto you, that mercy hath no claim on that man; therefore his final doom is to endure never-ending torment" (Mosiah 2:38–39)."

If the translator wasn't a nineteenth-century American but tailored his/her translation to appeal to a nineteenth-century American readership (the book's primary audience), and to Joseph Smith in particular, I assume you have a supernatural translator in mind (Moroni?). I suppose this would account for the Deutero-Isaiah and NT passages and other anachronisms as well. Do you think the translator was engaging in a bit of midrash/expansion too (a la Blake Ostler)? I don't really see how it could be otherwise.

Anyway, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this.

Edited September 25, 2017 by Nevo

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think we can get much out of this other than it appeared as if the characters that were copied appeared as if they had an ancient appearance, or connection. 

Oh, I think we can get a lot more than that.  Martin Harris took those characters to scholars, including Charles Anthon.  Martin Harris found the reaction from those scholars to be evidence in favor of Joseph's claims, as he (Harris) subsequently mortgaged his farm to pay for the first-run publication of The Book of Mormon.

What are your thoughts on this? 

51 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I do not think this says much regarding the inspired fiction idea.   It is either the characters were good fakes, or were really coming from something ancient. 

The "Inspired Fiction" theory pretty much precludes Joseph Smith's recitation of the origins of the Plates.  It also requires us to reject the Testimony of the Three Witnesses.  It also requires us to superimpose our non-percipient armchair analysis for that of the first-person examinations of the Plates claimed by the Witnesses.  And on and on and on.

The "Inspired Fiction" theory is, from a faithful LDS point of view, deeply, deeply problematic.  I question whether its proponents have thought through its ramifications.  I doubt it, as I have yet to see any sort of coherent defense of this theory.  Its proponents prefer keep their explanations in very, very vague, and in the realm of evidence-free supposition rather than addressing the substantive evidence available (namely, the historical evidences regarding the reality of the Plates and the testimony of the Witnesses).

51 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I suppose it's also possible those with whom Martin spoke with were duped, or Martin lied. 

"I suppose..."

"It's also possible..."

To again quote Bushman:

Quote

To account for the plates' presence in the records, skeptics look for signs of trickery.  Fawn Brodie, the most eminent of Joseph Smith's unbelieving biographers, referred to a neighbor's account of Joseph filling his frock with white sand and telling his family it was gold plates.  Dan Vogel, a recent biographer, hypothesizes that Joseph fabricated plates from tin while he was at Cumorah.  Contemporaries speculated that he wrapped a tile brick in a cloth.  One deception led to another until Joseph had fabricated a fabulous tale.  These explanations keep the story within the realm of the ordinary but require considerable fabrication themselves.  Joseph "may" have done this and "probably" did that.  Since the people who knew Joseph best treat the plates as fact, a skeptical analysis lacks evidence.  A series of surmises replaces a documented narrative.

He nailed it, I think.

51 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But even if they were ancient characters coming off the plates it does not mean the plates were translated into the BoM, nor that there is anything to say here about an inspired fiction idea. 

From the Three Witnesses (emphases added):

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...

These statements are, in my view, impossible to reconcile with the "Inspired Fiction" theory.

51 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That's quite a stretch, I'd say.  That Joseph could identify, at least in his mind, one page off the plates does not mean anything about the characters were understood by Joseph. 

"At least in his mind..."

"Does not mean anything..."

So you propose that we ignore what Joseph Smith, a first-hand percipient witness, said at the time in favor of your totally basis speculations in 2017?

I think . . . not.

51 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

For all we know Joseph was told that the translation here was from the last sheet.  It could be he guessed at such.  But it hardly means a very, very strong, even if not fully understood conclusion, if you ask me.  Its an interesting addition to this though. 

"For all we know..."

"It could be he guessed..."

Such baseless conjecture, this - as Bushman put it - "gross violence to responsible historiography," is the evidentiary/rational basis for defending the "Inspired Fiction" theory.  Perhaps you can start to see why I find it to be a less-than-compelling argument.

51 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The stretch becomes more apparent if we consider that Joseph did not look at the plates during the dictation process. 

He claimed to have translated the Plates "by the gift and power of God," using miracuous means and not secular scholarly learning.  We're way off the grid in terms of evaluating the translation process.  In any event, the "Inspired Fiction" theory posits that there was no translation, since there were no authentically ancient plates, and no Lehi, and hence no Mormon and Moroni, and hence no Angel Moroni, and hence no angelic visitations to Joseph Smith, and on and on.  Which brings me back to my original point: I think it is quite difficult to reconcile the reality of the Plates and the testimony of the Witnesses with the "Inspired Fiction" theory.

51 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's also possible Joseph was unable to decipher what the characters meant in English. 

...

Finally it is also quite possible Joseph didn't know.  Assumed the last plates contained the page, because ti looked short and review-like, different then the others, or something like that.  I think this is very little to pin much on. 

"I suppose..."

"It's also possible..."

"For all we know..."

"It could be he guessed..."

"It's also possible..."

"{I}t is also quite possible..."

"{He] assumed the last plates contained the {title} page..."

"{O}r something like that..."

Again, from Bushman:

Quote

 

These explanations keep the story within the realm of the ordinary but require considerable fabrication themselves.  Joseph "may" have done this and "probably" did that.  Since the people who knew Joseph best treat the plates as fact, a skeptical analysis lacks evidence.  A series of surmises replaces a documented narrative.

...

Dan Vogel likewise has brushed aside the experience of the Three Witnesses as more or less hallucinatory but has gone so far as to speculate how Joseph could have fabricated a set of tin plates to satisfy the unequivocal testimony of those who handled the artifacts. This explanation, ingenious though it may be, is of course highly debatable — it is nothing more than a hypothesis developed to meet the a priori demands of a naturalistic worldview. Regardless, what’s significant for our purposes here is that the historical evidence is so compelling for the existence of actual, physical plates in Joseph Smith’s possession that even his skeptics are forced to account for their existence in some manner. This much is therefore clear: one cannot simply dismiss the physicality of the plates without doing gross violence to responsible historiography.

 

"A series of surmises replaces a documented narrative."  That's all the "Inspired Fiction" folks have.

"{G}ross violence to responsible historiography."  That's all the "Inspired Fiction" folks do to the narrative of Joseph Smith.

51 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's probably unreasonable to say no plates ever existed, but since they are gone now, it is possible to say there were no ancient plates. 

Yes, it's "possible" to say that.

But the evidence for that proposition is . . . what?  

51 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

We can't look at them now.  We can't test them in anyway. 

That does not mean we are devoid of the opportunity to assess the evidence which does exist, such as the historical statements re: the reality of the Plates, and the statements from the Witnesses.  We could add to that Skousen's work on the manuscripts, and also the evidences in the translated text itself.

51 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The witnesses are great support to the notion that plates existed, sure. 

Not only that "plates existed," but also that the Plates "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," that they "they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us," that Joseph Smith's translated work "is true," that three competent and percipient witnesses "have seen the engravings which are upon the plates," that these witnesses were shown the plates when "an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon."

Meanwhile, the Eight Witnesses testified as to the physical reality of the Plates, which they witnessed in mundane circumstances, that Joseph Smith had physical possession of the Plates, that Joseph "show{ed} unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated 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.

So the Witnesses testify to a lot more than the mere existence of the Plates.  

51 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But they do nothing to help us determine if these plates still exist somewhere. 

Um, I hope you don't injure your back in moving the goal posts.

Nobody has ever suggested that the Witnesses' statements are probative as to the current location of the Plates.

Goal-post shifting.  Red herring.  Non sequitur.  Take your pick.

51 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

For all we know now the plates they had were fakes.  There's little to rebut that outside the witnesses. And they could have lied or been tricked. 

"I suppose..."

"It's also possible..." (used twice)

"For all we know..." (used twice)

"It could be he guessed..."

"{I}t is also quite possible..."

"{He] assumed the last plates contained the {title} page..."

"{O}r something like that..."

"They {the Witnesses} could have lied or been tricked..."

Quoth Bushman: "This much is therefore clear: one cannot simply dismiss the physicality of the plates without doing gross violence to responsible historiography."

The "Inspired Fiction" theory is nonsensical.  It is bad scholarship.

51 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I simply don't see anything here that argues against the inspired fiction idea.

I'm okay with that.  I think the problems of the "Inspired Fiction" theory are apparent to other readers of this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Well you are probably right, but I see him as THE poster boy for positivism.   I mean I think I am a naturalist as well so by my standards of naturalism I guess that makes him a positivist.  I am at least aware of other paradigms, while he seems to have blinders on to any other view of reality.   He is a bit like our friend Pete here.  As I guess I am demonstrating, people like that drive me nuts.    They do not even acknowledge that another point of view besides their own is possible.  THAT is my objection really I think.

I think whether you are positivist really depends upon why one embraces the interpretations one does. Dan embraced positivism but for kind of odd reasons as I recall. I still have on file a discussion at my old philosophy blog between Alan Goff, myself, and Dan. It was a great discussion over this. Plus someone very sympathetic to positivism joined in. Unfortunately when I moved to a new server the backup didn't save to the proper format so much of the discussion remains in a backup awaiting spare time on my part to restore. (Hah!)

The difference between a naturalist and a positivist is I think pronounced over the verification principle. Of course there was lots of variation among the positivists with (IMO) Carnap paying the most attention to critiques. I'd say that the whole enterprise was over by the time of Quine's two dogmas. But I do think there are elements that are salvageable. So I'm probably more sympathetic to the movement than many. It's just that I think any attempt to salvage the movement ends up making the things the positivists disparaged (ethics, metaphysics, etc.) far more defensible. 

With regards to Dan, I think what he's doing is just accepting some pretty commonplace views about what does or doesn't exist. i.e. rejecting most claims that get put under the rubric of "supernatural" (however horrible that category name is). Once you reject the existence of God, revelation, angels, and so forth you're left trying to explain things. And I think Dan attempts to do that. It's not that he has blinders on regarding other paradigms. He just thinks they're wrong. Which seems fine. I think his paradigm is wrong. At worst you might accuse him of coming close at times to scientism. But while I once labeled him with the positivist label I now don't think it applies. 

Edited September 25, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

If the translator wasn't a nineteenth-century American but tailored his/her translation to appeal to a nineteenth-century American readership (the book's primary audience), and to Joseph Smith in particular, I assume you have a supernatural translator in mind (Moroni?). I suppose this would account for the Deutero-Isaiah and NT passages and other anachronisms as well. Do you think the translator was engaging in a bit of midrash/expansion too (a la Blake Ostler)? I don't really see how it could be otherwise.

I think the deutero-Isaiah passages are not as problematic as some suggest. All you need is some prophet contemporary with Isaiah after the initial conquest by Babylon setting up Zedekiah writing the problematic passages. Oddly the most difficult to defend (IMO) aren't deutero-Isaiah but parts of proto-Isaiah (chapters 13 & 14) although even there I don't see it as insurmountable.

While I think the translation does engage in pesher and midrashic type expansions, I'm not sure how we could really tell which passages are that way.

As for your question, the common thought experiment I raise is something like Google translate that at one time largely worked off of phrase fragments in its corpus to make translations. The translation AI isn't even intelligent let alone conscious in any strong sense. Yet I could easily see it producing a translation like the Book of Mormon given an appropriate 19th century corpus - especially if the translation is done at this unit of phrase rather than word. If the unit of translation is larger than the word and the KJV forms an important part of the corpus along with Shakespeare and other texts (presumably very old texts given the odd 15th century phrases) then that would explain most anachronistic phrases.

So far as I'm aware, deutero-Isaiah & proto-Isaiah 13 & 14 are the only really extended quotation that goes beyond the phrase level. Most NT quotes are things like "how is it ye do not" in 1 Nephi 15:10 and Matt 16:11. Ignoring of course quotes from Mormon of the NT since while it's fair to doubt how Mormon got a NT codex he's writing late enough for it not to be anachronistic. (That includes disputed parts to NT texts like Mark 16:9-20) The only other problems are potential allusion to Malachi 4:1-2 (1 Nephi 22:15; 2 Ne 26:4) and Romans 8:6 in 2 Nephi 9:39.

Edited September 25, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Benjamin Seeker]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Isn't that true of science too? Just curious as to how you distinguish. 

Hadn't occurred to me! It seems the human search for knowledge is inherently flawed no matter the form of inquiry.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Oh, I think we can get a lot more than that.  Martin Harris took those characters to scholars, including Charles Anthon.  Martin Harris found the reaction from those scholars to be evidence in favor of Joseph's claims, as he (Harris) subsequently mortgaged his farm to pay for the first-run publication of The Book of Mormon.

What are your thoughts on this? 

The "Inspired Fiction" theory pretty much precludes Joseph Smith's recitation of the origins of the Plates.  It also requires us to reject the Testimony of the Three Witnesses.  It also requires us to superimpose our non-percipient armchair analysis for that of the first-person examinations of the Plates claimed by the Witnesses.  And on and on and on.

The "Inspired Fiction" theory is, from a faithful LDS point of view, deeply, deeply problematic.  I question whether its proponents have thought through its ramifications.  I doubt it, as I have yet to see any sort of coherent defense of this theory.  Its proponents prefer keep their explanations in very, very vague, and in the realm of evidence-free supposition rather than addressing the substantive evidence available (namely, the historical evidences regarding the reality of the Plates and the testimony of the Witnesses).

"I suppose..."

"It's also possible..."

To again quote Bushman:

He nailed it, I think.

From the Three Witnesses (emphases added):

These statements are, in my view, impossible to reconcile with the "Inspired Fiction" theory.

"At least in his mind..."

"Does not mean anything..."

So you propose that we ignore what Joseph Smith, a first-hand percipient witness, said at the time in favor of your totally basis speculations in 2017?

I think . . . not.

"For all we know..."

"It could be he guessed..."

Such baseless conjecture, this - as Bushman put it - "gross violence to responsible historiography," is the evidentiary/rational basis for defending the "Inspired Fiction" theory.  Perhaps you can start to see why I find it to be a less-than-compelling argument.

He claimed to have translated the Plates "by the gift and power of God," using miracuous means and not secular scholarly learning.  We're way off the grid in terms of evaluating the translation process.  In any event, the "Inspired Fiction" theory posits that there was no translation, since there were no authentically ancient plates, and no Lehi, and hence no Mormon and Moroni, and hence no Angel Moroni, and hence no angelic visitations to Joseph Smith, and on and on.  Which brings me back to my original point: I think it is quite difficult to reconcile the reality of the Plates and the testimony of the Witnesses with the "Inspired Fiction" theory.

"I suppose..."

"It's also possible..."

"For all we know..."

"It could be he guessed..."

"It's also possible..."

"{I}t is also quite possible..."

"{He] assumed the last plates contained the {title} page..."

"{O}r something like that..."

Again, from Bushman:

"A series of surmises replaces a documented narrative."  That's all the "Inspired Fiction" folks have.

"{G}ross violence to responsible historiography."  That's all the "Inspired Fiction" folks do to the narrative of Joseph Smith.

Yes, it's "possible" to say that.

But the evidence for that proposition is . . . what?  

That does not mean we are devoid of the opportunity to assess the evidence which does exist, such as the historical statements re: the reality of the Plates, and the statements from the Witnesses.  We could add to that Skousen's work on the manuscripts, and also the evidences in the translated text itself.

Not only that "plates existed," but also that the Plates "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," that they "they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us," that Joseph Smith's translated work "is true," that three competent and percipient witnesses "have seen the engravings which are upon the plates," that these witnesses were shown the plates when "an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon."

Meanwhile, the Eight Witnesses testified as to the physical reality of the Plates, which they witnessed in mundane circumstances, that Joseph Smith had physical possession of the Plates, that Joseph "show{ed} unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated 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.

So the Witnesses testify to a lot more than the mere existence of the Plates.  

Um, I hope you don't injure your back in moving the goal posts.

Nobody has ever suggested that the Witnesses' statements are probative as to the current location of the Plates.

Goal-post shifting.  Red herring.  Non sequitur.  Take your pick.

"I suppose..."

"It's also possible..." (used twice)

"For all we know..." (used twice)

"It could be he guessed..."

"{I}t is also quite possible..."

"{He] assumed the last plates contained the {title} page..."

"{O}r something like that..."

"They {the Witnesses} could have lied or been tricked..."

Quoth Bushman: "This much is therefore clear: one cannot simply dismiss the physicality of the plates without doing gross violence to responsible historiography."

The "Inspired Fiction" theory is nonsensical.  It is bad scholarship.

I'm okay with that.  I think the problems of the "Inspired Fiction" theory are apparent to other readers of this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

Let me just back up then and ask if you would define the theory you are arguing against.   Who might be a main proponent of it?  I'm curious what consideration you have given the idea of inspired fiction.

I used non-absolute statements because I'm speaking in the realm of possibility, combatting what I saw as absolute statements from you.  But that won't get us anywhere.  I don't think I saw a very good case made in the OP so I commented.  I'd like a redo so we can understand where we each are.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Quote

So who do you suppose the translator was?

I really have no idea (I could only speculate, and I am not much of a fan of most of the speculation out there). If you haven't read it already, you can read my thoughts on the translation/translator here (including some degree of response to the ideas of Skousen/Carmack):

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2016/book-mormon-communicative-act

And then if you want to get into some of these questions  you ask, I am happy to in the context of that presentation. Just let me know.

Edited September 25, 2017 by Benjamin McGuire

[Nevo]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

If you haven't read it already, you can read my thoughts on the translation/translator here (including some degree of response to the ideas of Skousen/Carmack):

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2016/book-mormon-communicative-act

And then if you want to get into some of these questions  you ask, I am happy to in the context of that presentation. Just let me know.

Thanks for reminding me of this. I just read through your presentation and found it very interesting (although I have to admit that some of the speech-act theory stuff went over my head).

From your comments in this thread, it seems you favor a tight control model where there is no third communicative act, where Joseph "has no interpretive involvement," but simply reads the words off of the interpreter/seer stone. Therefore, Joseph is not the author/translator. But you differ from Carmack in that you don't think this unknown translator belonged to the sixteenth century. You suggest that the archaic language in the Book of Mormon is part of a deliberate strategy on the part of the translator to help its nineteenth-century audience identify it as scripture.

You urge your FairMormon audience to regard the Book of Mormon as a "modern text"—specifically, "as a text that has been recontextualized for a modern audience" by the translator. For example, you ask: "When we see places where the text engages New Testament ideas and values, is this potentially the way that a translator understood the text in the modern context? Is this the way the translator believed that the original author would have expressed himself, if he had written it in English, and in a modern time frame?"

That's a perspective that I hadn't considered before and one that I'll need to give more thought. Kind of an interesting variation on the idea of the Book of Mormon as a modern expansion of an ancient source. Anyway, lots to think about here. I always enjoy reading your work. Keep it up!

Edited September 26, 2017 by Nevo

[Benjamin McGuire]

You will see in part of that, an idea that I really didn't have time to explore fully. I think that early Mormonism was much more willing to see a Book of Mormon text that was fluid than we are today. That is, we have managed to adopt a great deal of protestant theology of the Bible and reapply it to the Book of Mormon. So that if the Bible is true only so far as it is translated but the Book of Mormon (which must be translated correctly) is absolutely true. As we saw in a recent thread, there is this great resistance to changing the text - even where there is every reason to believe our current text is in error. Contrast this with Joseph Smith's willingness to alter the text in its second and third editions. Well, it's argued, perhaps Joseph had the right to change the text because he was in some way its "translator". I don't think this was exactly a consideration for many of the early modifications. Some of them were clearly made as a response to external criticism (I think I mentioned one set of those changes in another recent thread - but you might remember that there seemed to be some resistance to this idea). This was part of the reason why I chose that first quote that I used in my presentation:

Quote

According to the historic evangelical view, divine inspiration is more than a general influence over the biblical authors as a whole; inspiration extends to the micro-level of the very words found in the original text. This is an important doctrine for evangelicals, and it needs to be maintained. But at this point the reasoning of some (not all) conservative evangelicals begins to shift from defensible doctrine to questionable inference. Each individual word of Scripture, the questionable reasoning suggests, was specifically selected by God and delivered to us from above in a manner very similar to dictation. The words were sent down, one at a time, like crystal droplets. Each word is an autonomous integer, separate from the rest, and each is to be treasured like a sacred gem and cherished inviolate for all time.

See, we don't have to just infer the idea of dictation of scripture from a divine source - we can quote witnesses who will tell us just that with the Book of Mormon. And while we (collectively) read as Nephi likens scripture unto himself (often by radically re-purposing it), we ourselves have a lot of reservations about doing the same thing with his text (at least to do it consciously). Instead, we incorrectly claim that Nephi was writing specifically for our day today (so that we shouldn't have to liken it unto ourselves) and we reinterpret the Book of Mormon text (often in ways that can't possibly reflect the original intent) while telling ourselves that we are reading exactly what those ancient authors intended for us to read as their intended audience. This is in contrast to, say, Brigham Young, who noted that:

Quote

Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to rewrite the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be rewritten, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation.

And that was in 1862 - three decades after the original translation occurs. It would be much more significantly different were it to be re-translated today, rather than in 1830. We see other ways in which our present view of the Book of Mormon text has changed.

Does the translator need to understand the language on the plates? If there is some act of divinity going on, then probably not (but I don't like using divinity to answer any sort of problem that crops up). I think that Joseph Smith doesn't understand the language on the plates. He doesn't translate it in any way that resembles translation the way we think of it today. And our desire to create a translator is as much a desire for us to ground our belief that the text of the Book of Mormon has somehow an exact correspondence to the language on the gold plates. The first discussion of translation (which I quote) has little to do with these kinds of concerns. Instead, it was an apologetic explanation for how Joseph could claim the title of translator. It is an odd discussion, because that title isn't assigned by Joseph Smith, it comes as part of the stock language of the copyright statement required by law. But even so, Oliver refers us (the readers) back to a dictionary definition (Webster's 1828 I suspect - bolding added for emphasis is mine):

Quote

Your first inquiry was, whether it was proper to say, that Joseph Smith Jr., was the author? If I rightly understand the meaning of the word author, it is, the first beginner, or mover of any thing, or a writer. Now Joseph Smith Jr., certainly was the writer of the work, called the book of Mormon, which was written in ancient Egyptian characters, – which was a dead record to us until translated. And he, by a gift from God, has translated it into our language. Certainly he was the writer of it, and could be no less than the author.

Webster's 1828 dictionary defines an author as:

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/author
 

Quote

 

AU'THOR, noun [Latin auctor. The Latin word is from the root of augeo, to increase, or cause to enlarge. The primary sense is one who brings or causes to come forth.]

1. One who produces, creates, or brings into being; as, God is the author of the Universe.

2. The beginner, former, or first mover of any thing; hence, the efficient cause of a thing. It is appropriately applied to one who composes or writes a book, or original work, and in a more general sense, to one whose occupation is to compose and write books; opposed to compiler or translator.

 

But see how he plays with it? He is the author because he "writes" (as opposed to composing) the book. (And see too how he ignores the last part of the definition - that Joseph couldn't be the author as just a translator).

I enjoyed the rest of your comment -

Quote

But what do we do about the stuff that made a lot of sense to Joseph Smith's contemporaries but doesn't sound at all plausible nowadays (e.g., Native Americans rising up to annihilate white Americans prior to the Second Coming)? Were the original writers just wrong about this, or should we recontextualize "Lamanites" here to mean some other group posing an existential threat to "gentile" America? 

There is a certain humor embedded in this for me. Why? Because at the time of the first readers of the Book of Mormon, the term "Native American" was primarily being used in the debate over immigration. Those who were born in the United States referred to themselves as The notion of Nativism is born, and there was a push to prevent the current wave of German and Irish immigrants who were primarily Catholic from entering the country. The resulting political party was called (at first) the "Native American Party":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing

What I see in this is evidence that we are already recontextualizing things. Even after the move west, the Saints were constantly exposed to violence (to and from) these Native Americans that you refer to (the Black Hawk War - the western one - lasted until 1872). It was easy to understand the language of the Book of Mormon in that context. Today, not so much - not just because the Native American tribes aren't in conflict with us, and don't pose much of a threat, but also because we have since weakened the idea of the relationship between these tribes and the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon. So no matter what ends up happening that these texts may refer to, we certainly don't visualize it in the same way that the first readers of the Book of Mormon did. I think much of the answer to your question will depend on the context in which we think these kinds of predictions are fulfilled. And of course we have some of this already in our literature. Consider how LDS interpreters have frequently re-identified the secret combinations that could be heralding the end.

At any rate, there is my two cents.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think whether you are positivist really depends upon why one embraces the interpretations one does. Dan embraced positivism but for kind of odd reasons as I recall. I still have on file a discussion at my old philosophy blog between Alan Goff, myself, and Dan. It was a great discussion over this. Plus someone very sympathetic to positivism joined in. Unfortunately when I moved to a new server the backup didn't save to the proper format so much of the discussion remains in a backup awaiting spare time on my part to restore. (Hah!)

The difference between a naturalist and a positivist is I think pronounced over the verification principle. Of course there was lots of variation among the positivists with (IMO) Carnap paying the most attention to critiques. I'd say that the whole enterprise was over by the time of Quine's two dogmas. But I do think there are elements that are salvageable. So I'm probably more sympathetic to the movement than many. It's just that I think any attempt to salvage the movement ends up making the things the positivists disparaged (ethics, metaphysics, etc.) far more defensible. 

With regards to Dan, I think what he's doing is just accepting some pretty commonplace views about what does or doesn't exist. i.e. rejecting most claims that get put under the rubric of "supernatural" (however horrible that category name is). Once you reject the existence of God, revelation, angels, and so forth you're left trying to explain things. And I think Dan attempts to do that. It's not that he has blinders on regarding other paradigms. He just thinks they're wrong. Which seems fine. I think his paradigm is wrong. At worst you might accuse him of coming close at times to scientism. But while I once labeled him with the positivist label I now don't think it applies. 

I hit him with some Kuhn and Rorty and he had no clue.  No Willam James even. That stuff is pushing 130 years old. Total scientism.

Edited September 26, 2017 by mfbukowski

[smac97]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Let me just back up then and ask if you would define the theory you are arguing against.   Who might be a main proponent of it?  I'm curious what consideration you have given the idea of inspired fiction.

I used non-absolute statements because I'm speaking in the realm of possibility, combatting what I saw as absolute statements from you.  But that won't get us anywhere.  I don't think I saw a very good case made in the OP so I commented.  I'd like a redo so we can understand where we each are.

This article lays things out fairly well:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-imperative-for-a-historical-book-of-mormon/

[Nevo]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

At any rate, there is my two cents.

Thanks for the additional thoughts. I ended up editing my post before I saw your response because some of my thoughts there were only half-formed, but I appreciate you indulging them all the same. BTW, I originally wrote "Indians" but then opted for what I believed to be more culturally sensitive U.S. terminology (turns out I was wrong: "Indian" and "American Indian" are apparently preferred). Here in Canada we say "First Nations," "Aboriginal peoples" or "Indigenous peoples." Anyway, the topic was on my mind again because I recently read Matthew Dougherty's article, "None Can Deliver: Imagining Lamanites and Feeling Mormon, 1837–1847," in the latest issue of the Journal of Mormon History, and was again struck by how badly this idea has aged over the last 187 years.

I like your idea of a fluid Book of Mormon text. The Church appears to endorse this idea with regard to the D&C in the new introduction: "Joseph and the early Saints viewed the revelations as they did the Church: living, dynamic, and subject to refinement with additional revelation."

I've noticed this idea of scripture as something living and dynamic also turning up in recent discussions of the OT prophetic books:

Quote

The exegetical concentration on the passages in the prophetic books that have customarily been regarded as non-genuine makes it more and more clear that these are not only glosses and textual errors, but in many if not most cases are to be interpreted as later interpretations of existing textual materials that themselves convey meaning. We should therefore regard the "expanders" not as amateur glossators but as scribal redactors who in turn could be seen as "prophets." . . . Prophecy is thus increasingly seen as a collective and long-term phenomenon, and no longer as bound to a particular point in time and an individual genius.

— Konrad Schmid, The Old Testament: A Literary History, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 29.

 

Quote

For the authors and tradents of the prophetic books, the word of God has the characteristic of eternity . . . . This means that it does not display its effect just once but, rather, repeatedly, over and over again. . . . For this reason scribes and interpreters of the prophetic literature feel justified, indeed compelled, repeatedly to bring the word of God in the books of the prophets to bear on themselves and their time. They do this sometimes with and sometimes against the wording of the text that has been transmitted to them, since, they believe, it contains the full truth and therefore is relevant to them even if it does not explicitly say so.

— Reinhard G. Kratz, "The Prophetic Literature," in The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Companion, ed. John Barton (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016), 153.

 

Quote

"Biblical authors frequently commented on other biblical texts; they revised them, they argued with them, and they alluded to them. . . . Israelite thinkers, like those of the various forms of Judaism and Christianity, constructed their works by recasting language and themes found in earlier ones. Biblical authors bequeathed their successors not only a text, but ways of relating to that text, reacting to that text, recreating that text, and allowing that text to remain alive."

— Benjamin D. Sommer, "Inner-biblical Allusion," The Jewish Study Bible, ed. Adele Berlin and Mark Zvi Brettler (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 1829.

 

Edited September 26, 2017 by Nevo

[mfbukowski]

The Book of Mormon clearly has supernatural origins.   The accounts of its supernatural origins are the basis of the argument.

Believing in its historicity is therefore actually a religious question.  If one does not believe in the possibility of its supernatural origins, no one could possibly see it as historically accurate in any respect whatsoever.

I have a testimony of the "truth" of the Book of Mormon.  I even believe as a religious belief that it IS "historical".

But I have no illusions that testimonies cannot be based on historical facts.  Belief in the atonement for example cannot be proven historically.  There were probably hundreds of actual eyewitnesses to the crucifixion and even perhaps the empty tomb, including perhaps Roman soldiers, citizens of Jerusalem,  etc who did not accept or even conceive of these events as the "salvation of mankind from sin"

I take my belief in the historicity of the BOM purely as a religious belief based on testimony.

Quite honestly I cannot understand the need for belief in its historicity on any other basis.  As others have said, angels do not deliver golden books.  There is no evidence for such an historical event except Joseph's obviously biased testimony.  Of course we have the witnesses and of course we all know the problems and discussions involving them, and clearly the mere existence of these discussions shows that the evidence is not taken seriously by critics.

On the religious side, I fully believe in angels, visitations, prophets, and Mormon theology but I have no illusions that even the evidence which exists for the "reality" of these events and objects could possibly convince anyone who does not accept them on faith.

As I have said this does not imply that the BOM is "fiction" in any way.

[champatsch]

5 hours ago, Nevo said:

From your comments in this thread, it seems you favor a tight control model where there is no third communicative act, where Joseph "has no interpretive involvement," but simply reads the words off of the interpreter/seer stone. Therefore, Joseph is not the author/translator. But you differ from Carmack in that you don't think this unknown translator belonged to the sixteenth century. You suggest that the archaic language in the Book of Mormon is part of a deliberate strategy on the part of the translator to help its nineteenth-century audience identify it as scripture.

Carmack doesn't think there was a single unknown translator who belonged to the sixteenth century.  Various people have jumped to that conclusion.

A succinct position of Book of Mormon translation might be the following:

The Lord translated the text or had it done.

Suppose it is the latter, then a slightly more fine-grained position, but still vague, might be:

The Lord directed a translation with multiple inputs, perhaps on multiple occasions.

(One issue to keep in mind is that from our limited perspective we cannot be sure we have an accurate view of the translation process.)

The (last) translation event was probably not far removed in time from its delivery to Joseph Smith.

The translation process included many archaic, extra-biblical elements (one-time event) or preserved many archaic, extra-biblical elements (series of translations).

The verbal system, the core of grammar, is mostly in the form and structure of pre-1701 English (Early Modern English).  Many features are extra-biblical.  This is a systematic view.  An exception is that systematically the auxiliary usage in the present perfect and past perfect with motion and change-of-state verbs fits broad English usage of the late 1700s. Non-systematically, all this unaccusative perfect syntax can be found in the 1600s.

The present tense, past tense, future tense, as well as several aspects of the perfect tenses, fit usage of the early modern period systematically.  The same for verbal complementation after verbs like cause, command, desire, make, suffer; as well as many other things.  There is some modern English in the text.  There is also some late Middle English in the text.  Etc.

[champatsch]

11 hours ago, Nevo said:

As I've pointed out before (as have others), King Benjamin's sermon is full of nineteenth-century sermon language. E.g.: "Therefore, if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever. And now I saw unto you, that mercy hath no claim on that man; therefore his final doom is to endure never-ending torment" (Mosiah 2:38–39)."

The sermon is also full of 16c and 17c morphosyntax.  Plus, these phrases are all found before 1700 and some even before 1600.  For example, "shrink at his presence" is found in Job 23:15 in the 1568 Bishops' Bible.  "Shrunke from his presence" is found in 1638.  "Final doom" is found beginning in the 1500s, and there are hundreds of examples in the 1600s.  And of course, these Book of Mormon phrases are found in a matrix of archaic, early modern syntax.  So it's more accurate to say that these are early modern and/or modern phrases, couched in (mostly) archaic, extra-biblical grammar.

[Kevin Christensen]

There is much more going on in King Benjamin's speech than a bucketful of phrases.

https://ldsmag.com/article-1-1644/

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA