Another Faith Crisis Letter

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Let's assume that EmodE is there like you claim.  Then why?  Don't you have an hypothesis as to why it would be there in the first place?  Also, why bother inserting EmodE in the first place if the idea is to communicate God's word to the world?

I may get intrigued enough to figure this out more mostly because I object to members trying to say the BoM is better than the Bible because it only went through one translation, one simple dictation process straight from Moroni's etching tool to English unfettered.  Well, if the BoM story is ancient at all, there is no reason at all to assume that it is any better than the Bible anymore.  It has apparently been through as much editing, handled by scribes and all that as the Bible.  

[california boy]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I would be very surprised if support for the right of people to engage in non-traditional marriage does not increase in coming years.  We already know that this is a matter of demographics -- the younger generation being far more tolerant of divergent lifestyles.  As the older generation dies off, the tolerance for Same Sex Marriage will increase.

I agree, and I think most people agree that as older generation diminish, support for gay marriage will increase.  But it is far more than a demographic shift that is happening.  A 10 point shift of acceptance of gay marriage is far more than just a dying generation.  So where do you think THAT increase is coming from?

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

I agree, and I think most people agree that as older generation diminish, support for gay marriage will increase.  But it is far more than a demographic shift that is happening.  A 10 point shift of acceptance of gay marriage is far more than just a dying generation.  So where do you think THAT increase is coming from?

Well, I'd venture that some portion of it stems from the successful, though still utterly contemptible, nonstop and generally false accusations that people of faith are bigots and homophobes where they fail to embrace and endorse same-sex marriage.  

"Faith-shaming," to coin a phrase.

Thanks,

-Smac

[champatsch]

37 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Let's assume that EmodE is there like you claim.  Then why?  Don't you have an hypothesis as to why it would be there in the first place?  Also, why bother inserting EmodE in the first place if the idea is to communicate God's word to the world?

I can of course answer the why as well as the next person, and based on a lot of research, but it is on the more speculative side of things.

To be clear, the Book of Mormon is not a monolithic Early Modern English text.  It's not a text of the year 1588 or 1657.  It also has a few older features from before the year 1500, and it also has quite a few features that are best characterized as 18c.  But almost all the verbal system, the core of grammar, is Early Modern English in character.  As a result, we do encounter some simple phrases that emerged in the 18c used in a framework of mostly Early Modern English syntax.

That said, the Book of Mormon incorporates a huge amount of King James phraseology.  What year is that language?  A lot of it originates with Tyndale, whose last NT translation was dated 1534, and whose Pentateuch was published in 1530. Some of it is later, representing changes found in the Geneva Bible (1557, 1560) or the Bishops' Bible (1568), or first found in the King James Bible (1611). So because the nature of the verbal system of the Book of Mormon is 16c and 17c, then it fits fairly well with the King James language, which is basically 16c language. Early 19c syntax doesn't fit as well with 16c King James language. That is part of the why.

Another part of the why is that the Book of Mormon's archaic, extra-biblical syntax and lexis answers the long-standing question of whether ideas were revealed to Joseph or words. It must be the latter, based on the textual evidence, which has only recently become available (in the last decade).

As to intelligibility, the Lord was able to carry out an archaic translation that was still by and large quite easy to understand in 1830. They understood it better than we do today. They were almost 200 years closer to the archaism than we are. Obsolete vocabulary was filtered for recognition, and notice that the Book of Mormon is more easily understood than the King James Bible, which is on average a more archaic text.

At this time, for the first time ever, the LDS church would be able to consistently and accurately modernize the text, if the leadership chose to do such a thing.  They would have to do it based on all the work done as part of the critical text project and based on the vast digital resources that have opened up in the last decade.

Edited December 13, 2017 by champatsch

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, I'd venture that some portion of it stems from the successful, though still utterly contemptible, nonstop and generally false accusations that people of faith are bigots and homophobes where they fail to embrace and endorse same-sex marriage.  

"Faith-shaming," to coin a phrase.

Thanks,

-Smac

Perhaps you are right.  Maybe Mormons are asking themselves that very question.  Are they just being bigots and homophobes in denying support for gay marriage?  Or as they see gay couples living a good and full life, enjoying the same benefits of marriage that they do, their attitudes are shifting despite the doubling down of church leaders.

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

What do you think is happening when support for gay marriage in the Mormon church has gone from 26% in 2015 to 37% in 2016,  That is a huge jump.  Where do you think all that surge of support coming from?  Do you think the support for gay marriage has now peaked amongst members?  Do you think that increased support among members is an indication of more committed members than ever before as you indicated was happening?  

I think it reflects the reality that the doomsday predictions of gay marriage were wrong. However it's hard to tell from these statistics whether it means support for social legal marriage versus true acceptance of marriage. To draw an analogy most Mormons oppose adultery but almost certainly would also oppose making adultery illegal. 

[california boy]

12 minutes ago, champatsch said:

At this time, for the first time ever, the LDS church would be able to consistently and accurately modernize the text, if the leadership chose to do such a thing.  They would have to do it based on all the work done as part of the critical text project and based on the vast digital resources that have opened up in the last decade.

Why do you say "for the first time ever"?  Wouldn't the first time ever be when Joseph Smith was writing the text?  1830 language is pretty close to what we speak today.  The real question is, why did Joseph Smith translate the BoM in "Bible english" in the first place.  Detractors claim it was because he wanted his book to sound more like scripture.  What do you say is the reason?

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think it reflects the reality that the doomsday predictions of gay marriage were wrong. However it's hard to tell from these statistics whether it means support for social legal marriage versus true acceptance of marriage. To draw an analogy most Mormons oppose adultery but almost certainly would also oppose making adultery illegal. 

I think you are correct as well.  Gay marriage has not devalued the institution of marriage which was the main argument against it.  People see value in including gays in creating strong family units in society.  I think this will increase.  It is becoming way more difficult for people to paint a picture of what horror and destruction gay marriage will bring upon civilization.  

So where does that leave the church's position?  How will the church hold that belief when everything is pointing in the other direction.  Why couldn't the church take the position that God will sort this out in the next life.  A common strategy when other sticky marriage issues have come up.  

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

Perhaps you are right.  Maybe Mormons are asking themselves that very question.  Are they just being bigots and homophobes in denying support for gay marriage?  

Let's be honest.  That's not a question most people ask themselves naturally.  So if it is being asked, it is because they are being constantly accused of such horrid things by your compatriots.

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

Or as they see gay couples living a good and full life, enjoying the same benefits of marriage that they do, their attitudes are shifting despite the doubling down of church leaders.

I think there can be a shift that does not require capitulation on our beliefs.  Latter-day Saints can - and should - accept and respect same-sex couples as having lawful relationships.  However, they can and should also find for themselves that such relationships to be unacceptable before God, not unlike live-in couples, polygamous families, and so on.

The funny thing, though, is that live-in couples and polygamous families are not mounting non-stop campaigns against the LDS Church, with the attendant nonstop - and damnably false - accusations of hatred and bigotry.  These other folks are . . . simply indifferent to what Mormons may think and believe and teach.   They are generally willing to allow for differences of opinion on the morality of their living arrangements.  Your compatriots, on the other hand . . . 

Fred Karger, call your office!

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

43 minutes ago, california boy said:

I agree, and I think most people agree that as older generation diminish, support for gay marriage will increase.  But it is far more than a demographic shift that is happening.  A 10 point shift of acceptance of gay marriage is far more than just a dying generation.  So where do you think THAT increase is coming from?

Hopefully it is coming from people actually reflecting on the issue and coming to a more broadminded conclusion.  But changing is difficult for some.

[clarkgoble]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

So where does that leave the church's position?  How will the church hold that belief when everything is pointing in the other direction.  Why couldn't the church take the position that God will sort this out in the next life.  A common strategy when other sticky marriage issues have come up.  

I'll be honest and say I don't quite understand the Church's position here but lacking any clear revelation on the subject give them the benefit of doubt. Speaking of the political issue that is. My personal feeling is that the separation of church and state should entail getting the government out of marriage and keeping it purely a religious issue. I think that had social conservatives pushed for that back in the 90's when they had the chance that they could have avoided most of the problems of the past 10 years.

My sense is you mean something more than that and are speaking not just of American public laws but of Church acceptance of marriage. That seems a different issue and I don't think the polls get at that issue clearly. That's why I raised adultery as an analogy to get at the moral/legal distinction. Now I suspect that the moral/legal distinction is also breaking down somewhat as homosexuality becomes more broadly socially acceptable. But I do think it is a distinction that holds for most members.

[Oliblish]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, I'd venture that some portion of it stems from the successful, though still utterly contemptible, nonstop and generally false accusations that people of faith are bigots and homophobes where they fail to embrace and endorse same-sex marriage.  

"Faith-shaming," to coin a phrase.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am one of those who has changed my mind on this issue.  And it certainly was not due to accusations of being a bigot or homophobe.  On the contrary, arguments like that tend to backfire and cause many to dig in their heels and double down on their beliefs.  

My views evolved over time but one event that really caused me to reflect was when my gay cousin married his partner of over 20 years on the day it became legal in Utah.  He was so excited it was contagious.   On the local news they showed numerous couples getting married.  They were all so happy and I could not see how it was right to deny all of these couples something that made them so happy.  

I contrasted that happiness with the HORRIBLE stories my cousin told me about how it was to grow up as a gay teen in the 1970's.  Things have changed a lot for the better since then.  

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

I don't know if finding EmodE in the book of mormon helps. Do you claim the book of mormon was first translated into EmodE and then hidden without anyone knowing? Why would God go through multiple translations to bring us His word? Why not just directly give us His words like He supposedly did in the book of moses?

He did - it's just in an older English syntax. The question for those who say Joseph Smith made it up, is how did that happen if the syntax was not used in the new English colonies/states of Joseph's day? I mean we are talking about a back woods 20 yr old farm boy, who would have no experience with that syntax in his everyday life including the usual school books. Maybe he read Shakespeare or something, but let's face it, the BoM is not Shakespeare. As for multiple translations - are you kidding me? How many translations does the Bible have? Are they really all necessary? Why can't the KJV alone be the one inspired version like some claim?

Quote

 Also, why not give us His words without the need for the many corrections that have been done since Joseph Smith gave us the book?

Actually, many of those "corrections" are really not corrections - probably the vast majority. Many are changes which actually serve to eliminate the Hebraic roots of the text. In other words they are kind of like some of the changes to the earliest Bibles done by Jerome. The first translations were very literal - almost mechanical. They preserved the Semitic feel to the text better - the Semitic style of speech - conjunctions and the like. Jerome's new translation was actually not very popular for awhile because it read differently to those who had become used to the old Latin. Well, many, many changes to the BoM were made for these reasons - to make the text more readable to the average English reader - they eliminated a lot of the Hebraisms. So rather than being evidence of its faults, these changes are really evidence of the book's original Hebraic character - something which should be doubly difficult for the critics like Zachary to explain, but instead they gloss over this important evidence for the book's veracity by just calling them "errors" and people like you buy it - alluding to "the many corrections" like you do above.

 

[Thinking]

11 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

The question for those who say Joseph Smith made it up, is how did that happen if the syntax was not used in the new English colonies/states of Joseph's day? I mean we are talking about a back woods 20 yr old farm boy, who would have no experience with that syntax in his everyday life including the usual school books.

Actually he would have experience with that syntax by reading the Bible. Also, the number of grammatical errors in the first edition fits nicely with an uneducated creative farm boy.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

I am one of those who has changed my mind on this issue.  And it certainly was not due to accusations of being a bigot or homophobe.  On the contrary, arguments like that tend to backfire and cause many to dig in their heels and double down on their beliefs.  

And also to use reason and faith to examine their beliefs.  And that process can and does result in the conclusion that the Law of Chastity remains in force and effect.

14 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

My views evolved over time but one event that really caused me to reflect was when my gay cousin married his partner of over 20 years on the day it became legal in Utah.  He was so excited it was contagious.   On the local news they showed numerous couples getting married.  They were all so happy and I could not see how it was right to deny all of these couples something that made them so happy.  

I contrasted that happiness with the HORRIBLE stories my cousin told me about how it was to grow up as a gay teen in the 1970's.  Things have changed a lot for the better since then.  

I respect that position.

I think we are all "evolving" in how we approach issues pertaining to homosexuality.  We clearly are doing better than we have before, and we still have plenty of room for improvement.  But at a very fundamental level, I think the Law of Chastity remains in full force and effect.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Exiled said:

I think most of Mr. Ash's interpretation's suffer from a failure to admit to the difference between what is possible and what is probable. But I guess one has to deal with the facts as they are.

What Mike Ash has shown is the anti-Mormon two-step formula  which is the formula of a con-man:

1. Create false assumptions or straw men

2.  Destroy the false assumptions or straw men with critical information

This is a very effective method for preying on the naive and vulnerable, but what does Ash see as the main sources of the false assumptions made by the anti-Mormons?

 (A) Unrealistic Expectations of Prophets (B) Confusing Tradition With Doctrine (C) Imposing Our View on Others (D) Unrealistic Expectations of Science and Scholarship."  

  http://www.fairblog.org/2011/05/18/best-of-fair-episode-4-shaken-faith-syndrome/ .

5 hours ago, Exiled said:

 Nevertheless, there were too many "so what" answers. 1769 biblical errors in the book of mormon is pretty solid evidence against historicity. So what doesn't cut it for me. Combine that with the lack of new world evidence for nephites and lamanites and the anachronisms, shows that it was a 19th century production.

There is plenty of hard, secular evidence for the presence of Nephites, Lamanites, and Jaredites in the New World (as the books by Brant Gardner and John L. Sorenson have shown us).  In addition, as champatsch (Stanford Carmack) has shown us in recent years, the Book of Mormon cannot be a 19th century product -- since by the 19th century, the language of the book no longer existed in use by anyone.  All Joseph could do was to read it off his stone, which is itself an additional preposterous claim.

5 hours ago, Exiled said:

His book of abraham treatment also solidified my views that Joseph Smith invented that account too. Each issue brought up in the book of abraham chapter and the absence of a plausible responses thereto showed to me again that the book is a 19th century invention and not the real words of abraham, if the guy ever existed.

There is nothing at all implausible about the Book of Abraham, although that is not a subject which just any ordinary person is capable of judging.  See my “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 8 online August 18, 2014, at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .

5 hours ago, Exiled said:

Also, there is a failure to explain the volume of questionable occurrences that lead to doubt and distrust. However, doing so would lead to the wrong conclusion that Mr. Ash wants people to reach. At a certain point adding everything up has to tip the scales over to non-belief.

Pretending that the evidence is not there is not the same as dealing with it, Exiled.  If you need any bibliographic material, just let me know.

[RevTestament]

11 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Actually he would have experience with that syntax by reading the Bible. Also, the number of grammatical errors in the first edition fits nicely with an uneducated creative farm boy.

Actually not. You are choosing to ignore the newest textual evidence on the BoM. As Champatsch is pointing out EME in the BoM does NOT come from reading the KJV. 

As for the "grammatical errors" you allude to many of those were not directly attributable to Joseph Smith ie spelling. Despite Joseph's practice of spelling out lots of the words, the scribes misspelled many words in the first manuscript. The printer corrected many of these. These misspellings are attributable to the scribes own bad spelling and not Joseph. Nevertheless, they are part of the changes which have occurred to the BoM over the years. Do you include those in your "grammatical errors?" As I have alluded, many of the "grammatical errors" are really not "errors" but just changes made to the BoM from the early more literal Semitic syntax which was incorporated into the BoM in Joseph's first dictation. Out of the 4000 some odd changes to the BoM the critics like to point to as "errors" half or more can be attributed to changes designed to make the text more readable or in other words to change it from its earlier Semitic syntax structure. Are these the "grammatical errors" you are trying to attribute to an uneducated "creative" farm boy? You will have to do much better than that old, tired worn out cliche to get away with that now. Perhaps you would like to be more specific?

[champatsch]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

The real question is, why did Joseph Smith translate the BoM in "Bible english" in the first place.

He didn't translate it into "Bible English".  You haven't even read what I just wrote.

[champatsch]

46 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Actually he would have experience with that syntax by reading the Bible. Also, the number of grammatical errors in the first edition fits nicely with an uneducated creative farm boy.

He didn't translate it into "Bible English".  You haven't even read what I just wrote.

[champatsch]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

Also, why not give us His words without the need for the many corrections that have been done since Joseph Smith gave us the book?

You do understand the human impulse toward linguistic prescriptivism, right? And you do understand the human inability to avoid textual errors, don't you? And you do understand the inability of humans to have a diachronic perspective without special study, correct?

[Exiled]

22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What Mike Ash has shown is the anti-Mormon two-step formula  which is the formula of a con-man:

1. Create false assumptions or straw men

2.  Destroy the false assumptions or straw men with critical information

This is a very effective method for preying on the naive and vulnerable, but what does Ash see as the main sources of the false assumptions made by the anti-Mormons?

 (A) Unrealistic Expectations of Prophets (B) Confusing Tradition With Doctrine (C) Imposing Our View on Others (D) Unrealistic Expectations of Science and Scholarship."  

  http://www.fairblog.org/2011/05/18/best-of-fair-episode-4-shaken-faith-syndrome/ .

There is plenty of hard, secular evidence for the presence of Nephites, Lamanites, and Jaredites in the New World (as the books by Brant Gardner and John L. Sorenson have shown us).  In addition, as champatsch (Stanford Carmack) has shown us in recent years, the Book of Mormon cannot be a 19th century product -- since by the 19th century, the language of the book no longer existed in use by anyone.  All Joseph could do was to read it off his stone, which is itself an additional preposterous claim.

There is nothing at all implausible about the Book of Abraham, although that is not a subject which just any ordinary person is capable of judging.  See my “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 8 online August 18, 2014, at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .

Pretending that the evidence is not there is not the same as dealing with it, Exiled.  If you need any bibliographic material, just let me know.

Could you give an example of a strawman Mr. Runnells uses?  

I have a hard time wrapping my head around why God would put in the archaic EmodE structures, assuming they are there, and not just mistakes like you would probably say that God instead of Son of God was. Why wouldn't God just be a little plainer?

I know you would say that I am trying to substitute my thinking for God's, but isn't that what you, and others are doing when you and others proclaim that the book of mormon is the word of God? What would you say if someone came and said they had a revelation that mormonism was invented?

As for the so-called anti-mormon formula, (A) prophets should always be treated as men because that is what they are. It seems to me that believers are wanting us to view them differently and don't like it when the prophets are exposed as always being men. (B) tradition and doctrine - what is doctrine and what isn't and is there a test to determine which is which? (C) I agree that mormons should not impose their views on others  (D) If you are saying that it is unrealistic for science to show proof of disappearing dna, then maybe you have something there. Also, I would say that the absence of evidence sometimes is evidence of absence. But there is always hope I guess for the possible but not probable.

 

[Exiled]

54 minutes ago, champatsch said:

You do understand the human impulse toward linguistic prescriptivism, right? And you do understand the human inability to avoid textual errors, don't you? And you do understand the inability of humans to have a diachronic perspective without special study, correct?

Couldn't God have simply had a finished copy presented to Joseph Smith devoid of these problems? How many changes have been made to the book of moses?

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Let's be honest.  That's not a question most people ask themselves naturally.  So if it is being asked, it is because they are being constantly accused of such horrid things by your compatriots.

Totally agree

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think there can be a shift that does not require capitulation on our beliefs.  Latter-day Saints can - and should - accept and respect same-sex couples as having lawful relationships.  However, they can and should also find for themselves that such relationships to be unacceptable before God, not unlike live-in couples, polygamous families, and so on.

Not a problem either. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The funny thing, though, is that live-in couples and polygamous families are not mounting non-stop campaigns against the LDS Church, with the attendant nonstop - and damnably false - accusations of hatred and bigotry.  These other folks are . . . simply indifferent to what Mormons may think and believe and teach.   They are generally willing to allow for differences of opinion on the morality of their living arrangements.

Well two things.  To be fair, the Mormon church has not mounted the attack against polygamous families and live-in couples that they have against the gay community.  I think if the Mormon church tried to make it illegal for live-in couples to live together there would be a much bigger backlash than they are experiencing from those that support gay marriage.

Quote

 

Your compatriots, on the other hand . . . 

Fred Karger, call your office!

Thanks,

-Smac

 

This is a bit unfair don't you think?  Fred Karger does not represent the gay community any more than the Westbough Baptist church represents Christians.  If you do want to point to compatriots, I would be willing to listen.  Do you really think that the majority of the gay community cares what the Mormon church's policies towards their own members are?  They may dislike the actions of the Mormon church, but I don't see any organized effort that is trying to tear down the civil rights of the Mormon church to practice its beliefs the way it sees fit.  If you do, please support your assertion with something more substantial than a cheap accusation.

 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'll be honest and say I don't quite understand the Church's position here but lacking any clear revelation on the subject give them the benefit of doubt. Speaking of the political issue that is. My personal feeling is that the separation of church and state should entail getting the government out of marriage and keeping it purely a religious issue. I think that had social conservatives pushed for that back in the 90's when they had the chance that they could have avoided most of the problems of the past 10 years.

My sense is you mean something more than that and are speaking not just of American public laws but of Church acceptance of marriage. That seems a different issue and I don't think the polls get at that issue clearly. That's why I raised adultery as an analogy to get at the moral/legal distinction. Now I suspect that the moral/legal distinction is also breaking down somewhat as homosexuality becomes more broadly socially acceptable. But I do think it is a distinction that holds for most members.

Thanks for your response.  I am just interested in what you think.  

[california boy]

1 hour ago, champatsch said:

He didn't translate it into "Bible English".  You haven't even read what I just wrote.

Are you asserting that Joseph Smith wrote the BoM in modern english?  If not, then you misread my point.