Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

[cdowis]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If you have a chance...I'm having a tough time understanding how it was that Joseph translated and yet did read a text he dictated.  Did words appear for him to read off as he peered in his hat, as the witnesses of the event claimed?  If so, did those words come to his brain after he did the translating?  Also, how do you explain the element of EModE in the resulting text?  

We are all having a tough time.

JS did not give details on the translation process even to his brother, but we can make a fairly informed opinion based on direct and indirect evidence.  I suggest you check out what Skousen has to say.

It is clear that "translate" does not mean what we think it means.

Edited March 8, 2018 by cdowis

[Brant Gardner]

On 3/6/2018 at 11:42 AM, smac97 said:

On 3/5/2018 at 9:19 PM, Gray said:

Is there a big enough pile of unknowns in Mesoamerica to hide Nephites?

Yes, I believe there is.  The "pile of unknowns" regarding Mesoamerica is huge.

It may well be that there are "Nephite" artifacts that have been discovered, but not recognized as "Nephite."  "Made in China" works well in 2018, but there was no corollary "Made in Zarahemla" designation 1,500-2,500 years ago.

I realize that I am coming to this very late. My apologies. Let me add some clarification. The answer to the pile of unknowns in Mesoamerica is that there is still a lot to learn, and many unexcavated sites that will undoubtedly yield something important to our understanding of Mesoamerican cultures. We learn more every day.

The bigger question is the assumption behind "hiding Nephites." That assumes that there was something about the Nephites that would make them so culturally distinct that it would show in their physical remains. I known that many have assumed that position, and for a long time, LDS authors attempted to find assumed Hebrew culture in the New World (they, and lots of others, particularly in the 1800s). It is the wrong question.

Take, for example, the question of Nephite Christianity. Certainly it was explicit after Christ's appearance regardless of what we think it might have looked like before. In terms of cultural remains, how would it have been expressed? Everything we know to look for in art and architecture comes from a different place, and a time that had no connection to the Book of Mormon peoples. The iconography that developed around Christianity used available symbols, and often converted or adopted Greek conventions. None of those would be applicable. So what would New World Christian symbols look like so that we would recognize them when  we see them?

The problem isn't that Nephites are hiding. They are quite likely in plain site (which is what John E. Clark referenced when he said that we probably have Nephite artifacts in museums now). We simply have no model of what a Nephite house looked like that might have been different than a neighbors Lamanite house--or Maya house--or Mexica house. Even among modern peoples we call Maya, they don't use that collective designation, but see themselves in smaller units. We see them speaking Maya languages, but they only understand tzotzil, tzeltal, mam, quiche, etc. 

 

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, cdowis said:

We are all having a tough time.

JS did not give details on the translation process even to his brother, but we can make a fairly informed opinion based on direct and indirect evidence.  I suggest you check out what Skousen has to say.

It is clear that "translate" does not mean what we think it means.

Thanks cdowis.  I'm curious how Brant sees it.  I can imagine fairly easily how it purported to have worked regarding Skousen's theory.  

[Rajah Manchou]

24 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

The problem isn't that Nephites are hiding. They are quite likely in plain site (which is what John E. Clark referenced when he said that we probably have Nephite artifacts in museums now). 

But there are some macro level Book of Mormon events that we should be able to see. We've discussed elsewhere vulcanism and geological evidences for the destruction that was said to have occurred during the early first century. No doubt we should be able to see evidence for this in the geological record. Out of all the Book of Mormon geography models, I think Mesoamerica does provide the best evidence for that.

But then there is the following 200 years of peace that should be visible in the archeological record, or rather, we shouldn't see evidence of war, drought, human sacrifice and all the other trauma that seems to have been common in Mesoamerica in the first three centuries AD leading right into the Preclassic Collapse.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, champatsch said:

Translation usually can have two broad meanings:  transference (such as motion in physics, or as in conveying from one state to another) and turning from one language into another.  Of course there are other meanings.  So it's the word translation or translate which causes the confusion.  Yes, the issue might not be clear in the paper.  I think for the most part Skousen used the word translation there to mean '(re)transmission or transference'.

If Joseph's the first author of the Book of Mormon, then there's no semantic issue regarding translation to discuss.  That appears to be your perspective.

If we assume, however, that Joseph isn't the first author of the text, then the "translation" process of the Book of Mormon text breaks down into at least two parts:
(1) turning one language into another and (2) either words or ideas being transmitted to him.

Skousen 1998 doesn't discuss (1); the paper is focused on (2), and he concludes from textual and MS evidence that it's words, not ideas, that came to Joseph.  Gardner 2011 thinks that ideas came to Joseph, and that he then did (1).

As I have thought about it recently, the question arose as to what ideas the Lord would have sent Joseph, according to the Gardner 2011 view.  Gardner may believe that the Lord sent Joseph only literally translated ideas, based on the Nephite record.  But I don't think we can rule out the possibility that the Lord could have also revealed ideas of functionalist equivalence (after Gardner 2011), so as to make certain ideas more understandable to Joseph.  If so, then the Lord would have translated (into ideas) some of the record non-literally, and so the Lord's translation (into ideas) would have varied between literal and non-literal (what I have called dynamic, borrowing the term from others).

Thanks for the clarification.  I looks like I was accurately representing the Skousen position of tight control after all.   You haven't shown anywhere that Skousen talks about a non-literal material being transmitted to Joseph.  Your idea of a dynamic translation process that includes God as the source of the non-literal ideas that were transmitted to Joseph is new to me, I haven't heard of this concept before this thread and I do read a lot.  Perhaps you can point me to some resources where this theory is explained in greater detail.

Also, I would love it if you are willing to answer my other questions in my last post.  The two primary questions are:

1. How exhaustive has your research been with respect to other potential influencing material that could have contributed to Joseph using 17th century syntax and grammar.  

2.  How extensively have you searched for other examples of people in Joseph's world that may also blend KJV language into their writings and preaching.  Do we know if this is unique to the BoM.  

 

 

[Gray]

17 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

The default assumption that it is a nineteenth century document has been shown to lack explanatory power for a lot of things. The Early Modern English for example.

Early Modern English doesn't represent a problem for a 19th century date, since it predates the 19th century (ie it's not anachronistic). Assuming it's been identified correctly (given the small group of researchers working on this relatively new theory, I withhold judgement for now), the next question is how did it get there. An earlier translator or angelic help are not required to explain its presence (and of course the second idea wouldn't be a historical explanation anyway).

Edited March 8, 2018 by Gray

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, JarMan said:

17 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The existing evidence that is being turned on its head that I was referring to is specific to the EmodE theory that claims as I understand it that Joseph couldn't possibly have produced 17th century English grammar, because the other texts that Joseph produced don't contain 17th century grammar and are distinctly different than the BoM text.  Perhaps I misunderstood the summary conclusion, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

You haven't said what existing evidence you are basing your conclusion on. As far as I can tell you are rejecting an idea because you don't want to believe it, not because any evidence contradicts it.

All the evidence that we have today supports that Joseph dictated the text, all the witnesses.  So when someone comes along with a theory that Joseph was not the source of the EmodE content and that Joseph couldn't possibly have produced it using the skills and resources that Joseph had, when we already know that Joseph dictated the text, then the people floating this theory are setting an extremely high bar to prove this theory.  

They would essentially need to try and eliminate every other possible influencing factor that could explain how this EmodE content shows up in the BoM.  This is a much different task than trying to find influencing factors on particular items.  I can't think of an example of this approach in any of the other scholarly disciplines, if anyone can think of an example, I'm open to hearing it.  The burden of trying to eliminate all other possible influences to state with certainty that nothing could have influenced something in a natural way, is such a high burden with respect to historiography, I'm not sure its ever been attempted before. 

12 hours ago, JarMan said:

The Book of Mormon is sacred scripture to me regardless of its source.

I'm glad to hear you say this, it sounds like you have an open mind to following the evidence then as well as being open to belief that isn't tied to any specific historicity claims.  This is a flexible belief and I think a wise one that can endure serious scrutiny.  

[hope_for_things]

8 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

No worries. After posting I thought it very possible that I misread the tone of your comment. My bad.

Regarding your question: "Can you give an example of a theological concept from these Rechabites that you can find parallel with the BoM?  Are you claiming that these people were isolated, without communication from the rest of the Israelites and that they developed Christian ideas completely independently?"

I'm not up to speed on the subtleties of atonement theology, and will defer to those out there with a better understanding, but there is a discussion about Arminianism having been influenced by Pelagius, a 4th century theologian, with some commonalities with semipelagianism of the 5th century. Pope Zosimus (probably not the Zosimus in the History of the Rechabites, but same century) seemed to permit it then was pressured to censure it. I've found a few articles discussing the similarities between Pelagiansim and Mormonism. Enough to make me wonder if anyone has done a deeper dive into the Book of Mormon to determine whether "Nephite theology" (not meant literally) is closer to Pelagianism, Semipelagianism, Arminianism, Hopkinsianism or something in between. I don't have the background to do it. But from my limited readings on the differences between all those theologies and the Book of Mormon, my guess would be something in between.

Of course the simplest answer is that Joseph wrote it, just as the simplest answer is that Jesus didn't ransom/suffer/die for our sins. But this is religion, so the answers aren't always the easiest ones.

I think the burden that you have with respect to your Rechabites work is that you are proposing that this isolated group developed theological concepts that were the same as other groups around the world, Christian theology, without any outside influences.  This is a very difficult task, similar to the EmodE task for those promoting that theory in that you have to try and eliminate all other possibilities for influences that could have brought the theology to this people through natural means.  

With both of these endeavors it seems like people are trying to use scholarly tools to prove the supernatural, and I'm pretty sure that has never been done before and I doubt that its even possible.  The tools aren't really compatible.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

For the record, that was a pretty good description. The only thing I would elaborate on is the idea that the Lord translated the record into ideas. I think the understanding/meaning of the text was given to Joseph. Language is an intermediary between understanding. We have some idea and put it into words. From our words, someone else understands meaning. Sometimes the meaning is adequately represented in words, sometimes inadequately. Sometimes in cross-language translation, there are words for meanings that exist only in one language. Then we find English speakers using schadenfreude because we don't have a word for it.

The more competently bilingual one is, the less "translation" happens. If you hear a language and understand it, you can quickly use a second language to replicate the understood meaning without worrying about the correlation between words. The scholarly translation of texts is slightly different in that choices have to be made for how a text is to be translated. We don't really have that in the Book of Mormon. It is fluently dictated. Therefore, either the translation into English comes from understanding or from a pre-existing text. Understanding the evidence for the two options is the reason for the differences of opinion between the Skousen/Gardner ideas.

Thank you, champatsch, for making the distinction between transmission and translation clear. That confusion has clouded discussions of the nature of Book of Mormon translation for a long time. The tight/loose terminology has been applied in ways that were not necessarily intended. 

Brant,

Thanks as always for bringing your expertise to the conversation.  You make some really good points.  I just finished reading a book about the coming forth of the English bible titled "Wide as the Waters".  I really enjoyed it and it highlights many of the challenges with respect to translating languages and the word choices that have to be made and how there really aren't straight forward fits for many of the words and even concepts in different cultures and languages.  So important to consider. 

With respect to this idea that champatsch has floated about God doing the translation first, and possibly including non-literal content, and then giving those non-literal words (tight control) or ideas (loose control) directly to Joseph.  What do you think about this from your perspective.  I think the evidence is strong that much of the BoM content comes from the 19th century environment of Joseph, influences from his family (dreams of his father) influences from his community (sermons in the burnt over district, masonry, pushback against deists, contemporary controversies, etc.)  Alexander Campbell saw all the main ideas of the BoM reflected in the current times and controversies.  Can you comment on this idea that God, and not the contemporary environment, is the source of anything non-literal in the BoM.  

 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

What I am suggesting is that the Lord--shall we say "read" for convenience-- the plate text to Joseph directly to his understanding. Once he understood, he processed meaning into language in the same way that he would have expressed any other understanding he had. When we see the way some of the sections of the Doctrine and Covenants were edited, I see a Joseph looking at what was recorded and saying to himself that what was written didn't quite explain what he meant--so he expanded it. He knew what was intended, even if the language had not precisely captured it. That doesn't suggest that the original was wrong, only that the process of putting meaning into language is always part of a humanly processed sequence.

I wouldn't limit Joseph's editing of the text in the D&C exclusively to expanding on his original intention.  That doesn't square up with all the evidence, and it also suggests that Joseph had a complete understanding about what his original meaning should have been.  Humans learn and grow, and they also make mistakes and change there mind.  Why can't we just admit this with Joseph, he wasn't a supra-human that didn't change his mind.  So much of his theology was an evolving process, and he also produced materials that changed and even contradict and conflict with earlier statements.  The originals were wrong in some cases.  Why do we keep trying to pedestalize Joseph? 

We have the line upon line theology and we don't believe in infallibility.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Brant Gardner said:

I realize that I am coming to this very late. My apologies. Let me add some clarification. The answer to the pile of unknowns in Mesoamerica is that there is still a lot to learn, and many unexcavated sites that will undoubtedly yield something important to our understanding of Mesoamerican cultures. We learn more every day.

The bigger question is the assumption behind "hiding Nephites." That assumes that there was something about the Nephites that would make them so culturally distinct that it would show in their physical remains. I known that many have assumed that position, and for a long time, LDS authors attempted to find assumed Hebrew culture in the New World (they, and lots of others, particularly in the 1800s). It is the wrong question.

Take, for example, the question of Nephite Christianity. Certainly it was explicit after Christ's appearance regardless of what we think it might have looked like before. In terms of cultural remains, how would it have been expressed? Everything we know to look for in art and architecture comes from a different place, and a time that had no connection to the Book of Mormon peoples. The iconography that developed around Christianity used available symbols, and often converted or adopted Greek conventions. None of those would be applicable. So what would New World Christian symbols look like so that we would recognize them when  we see them?

The problem isn't that Nephites are hiding. They are quite likely in plain site (which is what John E. Clark referenced when he said that we probably have Nephite artifacts in museums now). We simply have no model of what a Nephite house looked like that might have been different than a neighbors Lamanite house--or Maya house--or Mexica house. Even among modern peoples we call Maya, they don't use that collective designation, but see themselves in smaller units. We see them speaking Maya languages, but they only understand tzotzil, tzeltal, mam, quiche, etc. 

Can you explain why we shouldn't expect to find Hebrew culture or Hebrew words or Egyptian words or anything that would directly support a connection to a group migrating from 600 B.C.E. Jerusalem?  

I agree that any Christian iconography would be different in the new world, but how different.  You suggest that we likely have some already in museums today, which would be great, but why hasn't any connection ever been made to Christianity?  It might be quite different, but honestly would it be so different that nobody has been able to find a connection?  Jesus dying on a cross and being resurrected and then visiting the people and baptizing and calling disciples, and healing people.  Surely there would be some evidence of any of these things happening.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Can you explain why we shouldn't expect to find Hebrew culture or Hebrew words or Egyptian words or anything that would directly support a connection to a group migrating from 600 B.C.E. Jerusalem?  

I agree that any Christian iconography would be different in the new world, but how different.  You suggest that we likely have some already in museums today, which would be great, but why hasn't any connection ever been made to Christianity?  It might be quite different, but honestly would it be so different that nobody has been able to find a connection?  Jesus dying on a cross and being resurrected and then visiting the people and baptizing and calling disciples, and healing people.  Surely there would be some evidence of any of these things happening.  

I would suspect it had something to do with the Europeans coming. On one hand they destroyed some 90% of the native population, which according to the Book of Mormon would have apostatized a millennium earlier, and on the other hand, they introduced Christianity which was often co-opted into native religions either by conversion, symbiosis, or to camouflage traditional beliefs and practices. It would be hard to trace an authentic Book of Mormon religion through all that. At least in the Old World, the conquerors adopted Christianity, enabling their success in preserving relics from the past.

Below is an image of the Mayan symbol "Pop". It means "Council of Elders." Those born under its sign are leaders. It is the first month of the sacred, 260-day Tzolkin calendar. Note the interlocking square, the "Seal (or Square) of Melchizedek" in the center. Note the Mayan cross toward the right, which was a symbol of the "World Tree," the Milky Way, and a medicine wheel, each of which in their own way connect the underworld, the earth, and heaven. But of course we only see what we're looking for, right?

[Rajah Manchou]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think the burden that you have with respect to your Rechabites work is that you are proposing that this isolated group developed theological concepts that were the same as other groups around the world, Christian theology, without any outside influences.  

The model is simple. The Lehites were Rechabites. Judeo-Christian texts tell of Rechabites being carried by God to an island in the sea in the 6th century BC. 5th century AD Christian literature claims to be part of the Rechabite record that had been inscribed on plates or tablets and carried back to Palestine and later known as the Abode of the Blessed, the History of the Rechabites and the Narrative of Zosimus. And I would add the Book of Mormon.

In the following centuries, the Rechabites became known as Rahmans in Slavonic versions. The Rahmans were a historical group living in Southern Burma and the Malay Peninsula, a geography known anciently as Komara and Rahma (Cumorah and Ramah?) and which matches that of the Book of Mormon near perfectly. The inhabitants of Komara were entirely unknown to the western world until the first two centuries AD with the arrival of Greek, Roman and Persian traders. They were described as a Eden-like civilization, blessed by God and perfectly happy. Not unlike the descriptions of the Lehites found in the Book of Mormon during the same period. Based on brief passages found in 3rd century Chinese histories of this region, scholars believe that Christianity reached the peninsula during this period. 

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

With both of these endeavors it seems like people are trying to use scholarly tools to prove the supernatural, and I'm pretty sure that has never been done before and I doubt that its even possible.  The tools aren't really compatible.  

This is the only complete explanation for the Book of Mormon that is based 100% on historical and archaeological data. No supernatural needed. The history is remarkable enough.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Brant Gardner]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

If you have a chance...I'm having a tough time understanding how it was that Joseph translated and yet did read a text he dictated.  Did words appear for him to read off as he peered in his hat, as the witnesses of the event claimed?  If so, did those words come to his brain after he did the translating?  Also, how do you explain the element of EModE in the resulting text?  

and

do you think we can safely assume that the resulting English text represents what was on the plates (seeing as we have the issue of Joseph not consulting the plates according to witnesses during the process)?

 

It is difficult to answer the question simply, because I don't think it is a simple answer. I described the process in Gift and Power, and it took pages. The very short, and very unsatisfying answer is that vision occurs in the brain, not in the eyes. We typically see as a result of light coming through the eyes, but actually seeing happens when the brain interprets that light. As a doctor friend of mine recently told me, if you cover an eye of a baby for long enough, they will be blind in that eye, even though the eye itself functions properly. What happened was that during the time when the brain should have been developing its ability to interpret light into sight in that region of the brain, it didn't have the input--and then it eventually stops that process.

The next thing is that we are able to see at times without light. The most obvious is dreaming. We see in our dreams, but we aren't using our eyes. There is one case I found of an anthropologist experimenting with a crystal ball. Most people saw nothing, others saw different things. One girl saw a paper with writing on it that was so real to her that she turned the ball over to see if the paper was on the other side. I think that is where the words on the rock came from. They did not originate on the rock, but in Joseph's mind, and the specific words came from the normal way language is generated from existing meaning. 

Next question: "do you think we can safely assume that the resulting English text represents what was on the plates." I think that we can safely assume that structure, content, and basic meaning was accurately translated from the plates. I would be very cautious about specific words, because that is precisely where there would be the greatest variability. However, poetic structures can be show to have survived. I have been working on larger structural elements which have a discernible internal logic that is so foreign to modern assumptions that when Orson Pratt made new chapters in 1879 he "fixed" some weird chapter breaks because he didn't understand the ancient trigger that created the original break. So--yes, I think we can be confident that the translated Book of Mormon represents the plate text in those things that were most important.

[Brant Gardner]

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

But there are some macro level Book of Mormon events that we should be able to see. We've discussed elsewhere vulcanism and geological evidences for the destruction that was said to have occurred during the early first century. No doubt we should be able to see evidence for this in the geological record. Out of all the Book of Mormon geography models, I think Mesoamerica does provide the best evidence for that.

But then there is the following 200 years of peace that should be visible in the archeological record, or rather, we shouldn't see evidence of war, drought, human sacrifice and all the other trauma that seems to have been common in Mesoamerica in the first three centuries AD leading right into the Preclassic Collapse.

Of course there are things that affected the text that we should see. On vulcanism, see Jerry Grover's Geology of the Book of Mormon. As for the 200 years of peace, there are two basic issues. One of which is that the specific number is probably massaged to fit a non-historical reason. Nevertheless, there is (in the Mesoamerican region where the proposal is that the Book of Mormon took place) evidence of a decrease in warfare during those 200 years. A lot of the cause was a major economic disruption--but it was accompanied by a basic period of peace. So, yes, we do see exactly those things in the same place, and at the correct time.

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

The problem isn't that Nephites are hiding. They are quite likely in plain site (which is what John E. Clark referenced when he said that we probably have Nephite artifacts in museums now). We simply have no model of what a Nephite house looked like that might have been different than a neighbors Lamanite house--or Maya house--or Mexica house. Even among modern peoples we call Maya, they don't use that collective designation, but see themselves in smaller units. We see them speaking Maya languages, but they only understand tzotzil, tzeltal, mam, quiche, etc. 

 

The problem I often see is looking for Jews/ Egyptians in mesoamerica when we actually should be looking for Nephites /Lamanites.

[mnn727]

On 3/1/2018 at 1:46 PM, hope_for_things said:

The BoM came from Joseph Smith.  This is the clear and straightforward answer that both believers and nonbelievers should be able to agree on, and its the simple answer to a highly debated question.  

Sorry, but at best that answer is sophomoric and at worst it's wrong. 

[Brant Gardner]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Brant,

With respect to this idea that champatsch has floated about God doing the translation first, and possibly including non-literal content, and then giving those non-literal words (tight control) or ideas (loose control) directly to Joseph.  What do you think about this from your perspective.  I think the evidence is strong that much of the BoM content comes from the 19th century environment of Joseph, influences from his family (dreams of his father) influences from his community (sermons in the burnt over district, masonry, pushback against deists, contemporary controversies, etc.)  Alexander Campbell saw all the main ideas of the BoM reflected in the current times and controversies.  Can you comment on this idea that God, and not the contemporary environment, is the source of anything non-literal in the BoM.  

 

The good thing about continuing to talk and clarify is that he and I are not nearly as far apart on the nature of translation as either of us would have thought at one time. Both of us agree that God is involved in giving something to Joseph that Joseph dictated to become the English text we have as the Book of Mormon. Both of us agree that Joseph read something, and he was reasonable faithful to what he read (tight transmission). 

Both of seem to be in agreement that there is evidence that there is for a functional translation from the plate language to the English text. 

So where do we differ? The question is Joseph's role. As I read champtasch, he would suggest that since Joseph read a text, that God created that text (either directly or through an unknown intermediary, and he isn't interesting in the distinction) that Joseph read. Evidence of this is that the language used should have been foreign to Joseph.

I see God giving the understanding of the text to Joseph, just as though Joseph were fluent in the language of the plates and read them. With that pre-language understanding/meaning, Joseph generated the language in the same way that we all move from pre-language thought to language. I see the unusual grammar as linguistic artifacts that represent a pocket dialect that was not affected by the faster movement of language change in other locations, and places with more resources. We see some of those  features in Joseph's language, and many vocabulary items or grammatical features that come with, say, 50 years of Joseph. Assuming that they were unavailable to him because they don't appear in printed sources compares apples and oranges. When we see the same kinds of things in the D&C, I think we are seeing Joseph again, though champatsch disagrees.

I suspect that these conversations will continue. In any case, the differences of opinion about the nature of the actual translation are being clarified into a much more parallel understanding.

[Brant Gardner]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Can you explain why we shouldn't expect to find Hebrew culture or Hebrew words or Egyptian words or anything that would directly support a connection to a group migrating from 600 B.C.E. Jerusalem?  

I agree that any Christian iconography would be different in the new world, but how different.  You suggest that we likely have some already in museums today, which would be great, but why hasn't any connection ever been made to Christianity?  It might be quite different, but honestly would it be so different that nobody has been able to find a connection?  Jesus dying on a cross and being resurrected and then visiting the people and baptizing and calling disciples, and healing people.  Surely there would be some evidence of any of these things happening.  

Let me see if I can give you some examples. How many native American languages include any Norse? We know that they had a settlement, which was sufficiently isolated and preserved enough of their own culture that it could be identified. Nevertheless, we have no genetic or linguistic heritage. 

How about Jesus dying on the cross? Nephi has a vision of it, but it disappeared in the text after than. The Nephites never knew a crucified Christ. That wasn't a very interesting or important aspect of Christ. I wouldn't expect to find it at all. By the way, you will see some last generation LDS showing pictures of Christ on the cross in Mesoamerican texts. They were misreading the texts and those aren't crucifixion scenes at all.

How would a resurrected Christ be depicted in art? As a being descending from heaven? There are several in Mesoamerica. There are concepts that could have been appropriated, just as images of Apollo were the earliest representations of Christ in the Old World. Which of them were purely Mesoamerican and which were Nephite? John Dominic Crossan shows a picture of a sarcophagus with art on it that could either be Christian or pagan because the images were used by both communities. Context might tell us, but only because we have other things that have persisted so that we can identify them. We don't have that for the New World.

A complication that we don't know how it might have affected things is the aniconic nature of Jewish worship. How much of that was preserved in Nephite communities? We don't know. It is interesting that the region where we suspect there were Nephites is reasonable aniconic. There are definitely Mesoamerican influences, but not nearly the proliferation of art about the gods that we see in other areas. Does that mean anything? We can't say, because we just don't have enough information.

[hope_for_things]

33 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I would suspect it had something to do with the Europeans coming. On one hand they destroyed some 90% of the native population, which according to the Book of Mormon would have apostatized a millennium earlier, and on the other hand, they introduced Christianity which was often co-opted into native religions either by conversion, symbiosis, or to camouflage traditional beliefs and practices. It would be hard to trace an authentic Book of Mormon religion through all that. At least in the Old World, the conquerors adopted Christianity, enabling their success in preserving relics from the past.

Below is an image of the Mayan symbol "Pop". It means "Council of Elders." Those born under its sign are leaders. It is the first month of the sacred, 260-day Tzolkin calendar. Note the interlocking square, the "Seal (or Square) of Melchizedek" in the center. Note the Mayan cross toward the right, which was a symbol of the "World Tree," the Milky Way, and a medicine wheel, each of which in their own way connect the underworld, the earth, and heaven. But of course we only see what we're looking for, right?

Brant said it is likely these objects have been found and are in museums.  Your arguments about Europeans destroying all of it or the introduction of Christianity by those Europeans is different.  Competent archaeological digs can correct for those elements you bring up anyway.  

I have no knowledge about Mayan or any of the things you claim that symbol represents.  Find me a non-Mormon scholar of Mayan that confirms your interpretation and I'll start taking you seriously, otherwise I'm going to chalk this attempt up with all the other erroneous claims that have been made in the past.  

[hope_for_things]

33 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

This is the only complete explanation for the Book of Mormon that is based 100% on historical and archaeological data. No supernatural needed. The history is remarkable enough.

How did these records make their way to Joseph Smith and get translated if not by supernatural means?  

[Rajah Manchou]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

How did these records make their way to Joseph Smith and get translated if not by supernatural means?  

Joseph dictated them. We can agree on that, can't we? I don't think useful to speculate beyond that. But I persoanlly doubt any supernatural process was involved.

[CA Steve]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Can you explain why we shouldn't expect to find Hebrew culture or Hebrew words or Egyptian words or anything that would directly support a connection to a group migrating from 600 B.C.E. Jerusalem?  

I agree that any Christian iconography would be different in the new world, but how different.  You suggest that we likely have some already in museums today, which would be great, but why hasn't any connection ever been made to Christianity?  It might be quite different, but honestly would it be so different that nobody has been able to find a connection?  Jesus dying on a cross and being resurrected and then visiting the people and baptizing and calling disciples, and healing people.  Surely there would be some evidence of any of these things happening.  

One of the issues I see with saying that we may be looking at Nephite artifacts without even knowing what they look like and, as you point out, we are not finding any Hebrew or Egyptian words that support a connection to Lehi, is that the text of the BoM itself tells us that 800 years after arriving here Moroni was still able to read and write in reformed Egyptian on metal plates. How would it be possible to pass on that type of education and technical skills for that long without leaving a trace? These peoples knew how to carve in stone and, according to the BoM, knew how to leave records on metal plates.But for some reason they only wrote in Reformed Egyptian on metal plates but not in stone? Frequently these literate historians were not only the religious leaders but the civil leaders as well. So it is hard to imagine them not using  Reformed Egyptian, a language described by Moroni as being much more space efficient than Hebrew for record keeping, to maintain their civil records as well. Certainly from what we know of the meso-American languages, reformed Egyptian would be a huge improvement in all areas of government wouldn't it?

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

The good thing about continuing to talk and clarify is that he and I are not nearly as far apart on the nature of translation as either of us would have thought at one time. Both of us agree that God is involved in giving something to Joseph that Joseph dictated to become the English text we have as the Book of Mormon. Both of us agree that Joseph read something, and he was reasonable faithful to what he read (tight transmission). 

Thanks again for the detailed response.  If Joseph was faithful to what he read, I'm still not seeing how he could have blended what he read into the current events of his time and place.  If there is a basic story about a family crossing the oceans and coming to America, and they were led by God in this process.  If that is the basic outline of a story, or idea, I can see how Joseph would take that story and creatively imagine specific details as they relate to his experiences in life, blending in elements from his family relationships and current events in a creative merging of the basic story with specific details.  But that seems to fall apart if you are tied to specific wording being faithful.  Where would the original story and the expanded details from Joseph's life begin and end?  

31 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

Both of seem to be in agreement that there is evidence that there is for a functional translation from the plate language to the English text. 

Is this just speculation, or do you have a system where you attempt to support this with evidence.  Without having access to the plates or the writings on them, I don't see how this claim could be evaluated through scholarly inquiry. 

34 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

I see God giving the understanding of the text to Joseph, just as though Joseph were fluent in the language of the plates and read them. With that pre-language understanding/meaning, Joseph generated the language in the same way that we all move from pre-language thought to language. I see the unusual grammar as linguistic artifacts that represent a pocket dialect that was not affected by the faster movement of language change in other locations, and places with more resources. We see some of those  features in Joseph's language, and many vocabulary items or grammatical features that come with, say, 50 years of Joseph. Assuming that they were unavailable to him because they don't appear in printed sources compares apples and oranges. When we see the same kinds of things in the D&C, I think we are seeing Joseph again, though champatsch disagrees.

This is good stuff and makes a lot of sense.  I also liked your response to stemelbow about seeing and what we see may not actually be objectively there in the real world, but that it may be just as real to the person seeing it.  I think that makes a lot of sense with the seer stone, as I can imagine Joseph seeing things through his mind's eye, that weren't actually appearing in an objective sense, but that he still saw through his mind's eye.  

 

[hope_for_things]

28 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

Let me see if I can give you some examples. How many native American languages include any Norse? We know that they had a settlement, which was sufficiently isolated and preserved enough of their own culture that it could be identified. Nevertheless, we have no genetic or linguistic heritage. 

We've found archeological evidence of that very small and isolated Norse settlement, and its clearly Norse.  The corollary is that we haven't found any evidence for Hebrew settlements anywhere.  Also this Norse settlement didn't last long, and was extremely small compared to the numbers described in the BoM that lasted over 1000 years for the Lehites and even longer for the Jaredites.  

30 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

How about Jesus dying on the cross? Nephi has a vision of it, but it disappeared in the text after than. The Nephites never knew a crucified Christ. That wasn't a very interesting or important aspect of Christ. I wouldn't expect to find it at all. By the way, you will see some last generation LDS showing pictures of Christ on the cross in Mesoamerican texts. They were misreading the texts and those aren't crucifixion scenes at all.

But when Jesus visits the Nephites he shows them the marks in his hands and feet and explains what happened to him.  Perhaps that piece could still be lost, the emphasis on the cross, but the language in 3 Nephi seems to emphasize it somewhat.  

34 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

How would a resurrected Christ be depicted in art? As a being descending from heaven? There are several in Mesoamerica. There are concepts that could have been appropriated, just as images of Apollo were the earliest representations of Christ in the Old World. Which of them were purely Mesoamerican and which were Nephite? John Dominic Crossan shows a picture of a sarcophagus with art on it that could either be Christian or pagan because the images were used by both communities. Context might tell us, but only because we have other things that have persisted so that we can identify them. We don't have that for the New World.

I agree that Christianity borrowed much from other cultures, this is very clear.  Someone descending from heaven really wouldn't be uniquely christian or even uniquely religious necessarily.  I just think we ought to find something that could uniquely connect the two worlds.  There seem to be more similarities between Buddhism and Christianity than Mesoamerican religions and Christianity from what I can see, and I don't think anyone is proposing that Buddhism and Christianity derive from the same core theological beliefs.  The thing is, the BoM contains all the evolved theology from centuries of Christian thought, yet we can't find evidence for any of it in Mesoamerica. 

41 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

A complication that we don't know how it might have affected things is the aniconic nature of Jewish worship. How much of that was preserved in Nephite communities? We don't know. It is interesting that the region where we suspect there were Nephites is reasonable aniconic. There are definitely Mesoamerican influences, but not nearly the proliferation of art about the gods that we see in other areas. Does that mean anything? We can't say, because we just don't have enough information.

But what about the language?  They had Hebrew and Egyptian.  No evidence for any of it or anything that might represent an evolution of language that had its roots in those languages.