Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

[Rajah Manchou]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Funny, I was thinking the "Expertise in Hebrew and Aramaic by Proximity to a Library" critique was likewise not a strong one. I live a few miles from BYU, including its substantial Harold B. Lee Library.  But that proximity is not competent evidence that I use its resources.

But how many times a day do you speak with people who do? Do you ever talk about theology, history, geography? You don't always have to go to a library and read a book to know what is in it.

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is there evidence that Joseph Smith was a regular (or even infrequent) patron of Dartmouth, particularly its library?

No, but there is evidence that he lived 5 miles from a college with a mission to convert Native Americans that was full of Hebrew-speaking Arminians, two of which wrote books about lost tribes in America. I'm not arguing that Joseph went to Dartmouth, I'm just saying the Palmyra Farmer Library argument is not a strong one. 

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I find it interesting that, in the manifest failure by critics to articulate a naturalistic origin for Nahom, we are now seeing reliance on much broader and more vague and ethereal "Ah, Joseph Smith probably learned X during his visits to the Dartmouth library."  

I'm not talking about NHM, which I tend to accept as a proof for BOM historicity. So this is not a failure to articulate anything. Nor is it reliance on a vague argument. Its more like over-correcting for the tired argument that Joseph was surrounded by illiterate farmers his whole childhood, so how could he ever have learned anything?" 

Its just not helpful to keep repeating the idea that Joseph lived in a timewarp surrounded by villagers stuck in the 16th century.

[JarMan]

12 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

See post above. I don't think we need to appeal to a 17th century Dutch author when the Smiths lived 5 miles away from the center of Hebrew scholarship and Arminianism in America. You'd have to show that all these ideas in your list weren't in a book in the library, or bookstore, run by John Smith, the cousin of Joseph Smith's grandfather.

It would seem more likely that the ideas found in the Book of Mormon came from the mind/imagination/stone of an 18th-19th century scholar familiar with the works of Grotius and EModE literature. Its not the hypothesis I prefer (or put my faith in) but its too hard to escape the proximity.

If it were a 19th Century work instead of a 17th Century work we would find things that are anachronistic to the 17th Century. But with very few exceptions that’s not what we find. It’s virtually all consistent with the 17th Century. So we would need a 19th Century scholar who purposefully invoked only 17th Century thinking and who wrote in EModE and who had access to 17th Century sources that weren’t available in 19th Century America. And he has to do this without slipping up by accidentally including  anachronistic elements. This is an impossible model to support. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, JarMan said:

If it were a 19th Century work instead of a 17th Century work we would find things that are anachronistic to the 17th Century. But with very few exceptions that’s not what we find. It’s virtually all consistent with the 17th Century. So we would need a 19th Century scholar who purposefully invoked only 17th Century thinking and who wrote in EModE and who had access to 17th Century sources that weren’t available in 19th Century America. And he has to do this without slipping up by accidentally including  anachronistic elements. This is an impossible model to support. 

Of course, that assumes that there's consistent 17th-century usage in the Book of Mormon. I have seen no evidence for that. 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I wouldn't, but then it's no less fanciful a theory than one that relies on the supernatural.

"Fanciful":

Quote

adjective

1. (of a person or their thoughts and ideas) overimaginative and unrealistic.

   "a fanciful story about a pot of gold"

   • existing only in the imagination or fancy.

     "the Moon Maiden is one of a number of fanciful lunar inhabitants"

     synonyms:

     fantastic, far-fetched, unbelievable, extravagant; More

   • designed to be exotically ornamental rather than practical.

     "fanciful bonnets"

     synonyms:

     ornate, exotic, fancy, imaginative, extravagant, fantastic;  curious, bizarre, eccentric, unusual, fantastical, Seussian "a fanciful building"

So the critics counter Joseph Smith's "fanciful" explanation for the origins of the Book of Mormon by presenting . . . an alternative "fanciful" explanation.  That is the state of things?

I am . . . actually okay with that.  I'll repeat something I've said before:

Quote

Quote

{Teancum}: Angels giving plates of Gold to one person and that person using stones and or a thing called the Urim and Thummim to translate the book from some unknown language are fantastical claims and not events that are common nor really able to be demonstrated with much evidence. 

True enough.  There are facets of the Church's explanation as to the origins of The Book of Mormon that are essentially matters of faith.

But then we have the testimonial evidence of the Three Witnesses.  And the Eight.  And the character of those men.  And their behavior subsequent to being estranged from Joseph Smith (and hence would be very motivated to disavow the "fantastical claims" you mention, yet they did not).  And then there are the textual evidences.  Lots of them.  And the complexity of the text.  And the internal chronological and geographic consistency.  And the short time frame in which the text was produced.

The ironic thing, really, is that as contemptuous as you are about the quantum of evidence in favor of the LDS Church's position on the origins of The Book of Mormon (you suggest that it is not supported by even "a simple low level bar of plausibility"), the alternative theories proposed by the critics are apparently even less plausible, so much so that folks like Cinepro (and, I suspect, you) will not commit to any of them or present theories of your making.  At least the Mormons are taking the field.  At least they are engaging in assessment of the evidence and defending their position based on it.  Folks like you, on the other hand, are throwing their hands up in the air and insisting that the origins of the text are . . . well, you have no explanation, and instead buy into the "reasoning," such as it is, exemplified by this statement from Dale Morgan: 

Quote

With my point of view on God, I am incapable of accepting the claims of Joseph Smith and the Mormons, be they however so convincing. If God does not exist, how can Joseph Smith’s story have any possible validity? I will look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church.

 

I'm rather comfortable with relying on faith and the Spirit (predominantly, not exclusively).  It is preferable, in my view, to the reactionary, closed-minded, "I will look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church"-type attitude given above.

If we are reduced to considering two competing "fanciful" explanations for the Book of Mormon, then I'll go with the one that is full of hope and - for me - confirmed by the Spirit.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

"Fanciful":

So the critics counter Joseph Smith's "fanciful" explanation for the origins of the Book of Mormon by presenting . . . an alternative "fanciful" explanation.  That is the state of things?

I am . . . actually okay with that.  I'll repeat something I've said before:

I'm rather comfortable with relying on faith and the Spirit (predominantly, not exclusively).  It is preferable, in my view, to the reactionary, closed-minded, "I will look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church"-type attitude given above.

If we are reduced to considering two competing "fanciful" explanations for the Book of Mormon, then I'll go with the one that is full of hope and - for me - confirmed by the Spirit.

Thanks,

-Smac

That's fine. It just seems odd to demand probative evidence from one side but not the other.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Quote

Funny, I was thinking the "Expertise in Hebrew and Aramaic by Proximity to a Library" critique was likewise not a strong one. I live a few miles from BYU, including its substantial Harold B. Lee Library.  But that proximity is not competent evidence that I use its resources.

But how many times a day do you speak with people who do?

Not often.  I work in Salt Lake.

Perhaps the more appropriate question would be "How often do you confer with people who attend BYU and are well-versed in its offerings pertaining to {insert any number of fields potentially relevant to creating a text like the Book of Mormon}?"

The answer would still be . . . not often.

11 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Do you ever talk about theology, history, geography? You don't always have to go to a library and read a book to know what is in it.

I have occasionally talked with Daniel Peterson.  I've also read his blog.  Does that mean I am equipped to write a 500+ page book with a narrative set in ancient Arabia?  Nope.

11 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Quote

Is there evidence that Joseph Smith was a regular (or even infrequent) patron of Dartmouth, particularly its library?

No, but there is evidence that he lived 5 miles from a college with a mission to convert Native Americans that was full of Hebrew-speaking Arminians, two of which wrote books about lost tribes in America. I'm not arguing that Joseph went to Dartmouth, I'm just saying the Palmyra Farmer Library argument is not a strong one. 

The Joseph-Smith-Gleaned-Extensive-Information-About-the-Middle-East-and-Mesoamerica-by-Hanging-out-with-Hebrew-speaking-Armenians argument is likewise not a strong one.

Is there any evidence that Joseph Smith interacted with these folks in any meaningful way and for any appreciable amount of time?  That they shared with him information which he could have used to write the Book of Mormon?

I think we know the answer to that question.

11 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Quote

I find it interesting that, in the manifest failure by critics to articulate a naturalistic origin for Nahom, we are now seeing reliance on much broader and more vague and ethereal "Ah, Joseph Smith probably learned X during his visits to the Dartmouth library."  

I'm not talking about NHM, which I tend to accept as a proof for BOM historicity. So this is not a failure to articulate anything. Nor is it reliance on a vague argument. Its more like over-correcting for the tired argument that Joseph was surrounded by illiterate farmers his whole childhood, so how could he ever have learned anything?" 

Its just not helpful to keep repeating the idea that Joseph lived in a timewarp surrounded by villagers stuck in the 16th century.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That's fine. It just seems odd to demand probative evidence from one side but not the other.

I addressed this:

Quote

But then we have the testimonial evidence of the Three Witnesses.  And the Eight.  And the character of those men.  And their behavior subsequent to being estranged from Joseph Smith (and hence would be very motivated to disavow the "fantastical claims" you mention, yet they did not).  And then there are the textual evidences.  Lots of them.  And the complexity of the text.  And the internal chronological and geographic consistency.  And the short time frame in which the text was produced.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

I addressed this:

Thanks,

-Smac

That is indeed compelling evidence for believers. Sometimes I wish it were for me (well, not that often anymore).

[Rajah Manchou]

54 minutes ago, cdowis said:

• How old was Joseph Smith when he left his many years of studies at Dartmouth and extensively exploring the library to move to Palmyra? 

I doubt Joseph ever went to Dartmouth campus. He would have been between 6-11 years old. Hyrum would have been 11-17 years old when he attended Moor's Charity School at Dartmouth. Joseph Smith Sr. would have been, well, much older. 

Point is, for 6 years the Smiths lived 5 miles from a college campus full of scholars, missionaries and even Native Americans that spoke Hebrew, Latin, Greek and Aramaic. They weren't villagers stuck in a information black hole, limited to what they could find in that oft-mentioned Palmyra library. 

54 minutes ago, cdowis said:

• I assume you can document JS studies in these languages -- his acquaintances would  certainly mention his expertise in these languages.

Joseph didn't have any training in foreign languages, but Hiram probably did. I believe languages were mandatory for all students at Moors and Dartmouth. There would have been thousands of people walking around town with some training in Hebrew. But its doubtful Joseph Jr. would have noticed. 

54 minutes ago, cdowis said:

• What was the profession and  financial status of the father of this Smith who learned these languages to allow him the time to gain fluency in multiple languages -- rather than selling refreshments and manual labour.

I think he made wooden chairs. So a carpenter?

54 minutes ago, cdowis said:

• When you say "teenager", how old was this Smith person when he was knowledgeable in multiple languages?  Did this also include EmodE? The devil is in the details, as they say.

He wrote the first draft of his "Hebrew Grammar without Points" when he was a junior at Dartmouth. So he must have been 19-20 years old. He also wrote his Aramaic (Chaldee) Grammar around the same time. It was said that Latin, Greek, and Hebrew were almost as familiar to him as his native language and that he clearly comprehended the Samaritan and Chaldaic; and far extended his researches in Arabic. But this was later in life.

Point is, he was a Smith, and he still managed to learn enough to write the entire curriculum for Dartmouth along with a comprehensive set of theological lectures, grammar books for Hebrew, Latin and Aramaic. I think he even wrote a few plays, and published a couple orations by Cicero, with notes. So I imagine he was at least somewhat familiar with literature, including EmodE. He owned a bookstore and was also the Dartmouth librarian. So he surely wasn't ignorant of such things.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That is indeed compelling evidence for believers. Sometimes I wish it were for me (well, not that often anymore).

Secondary evidence, yes.  Spiritual confirmation must, in the end, carry the day.

Perhaps someday...

Thanks,

-Smac

[JarMan]

22 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Of course, that assumes that there's consistent 17th-century usage in the Book of Mormon. I have seen no evidence for that. 

Not really. The original Latin text was produced in the 17th Century. The translation into English could have taken place during multiple events over a period of time. The obvious precedence for this is the 1611 KJB which was produced over a period of a couple of hundred years with several translation events and revisions. 

[Rajah Manchou]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have occasionally talked with Daniel Peterson.  I've also read his blog.  Does that mean I am equipped to write a 500+ page book with a narrative set in ancient Arabia?  Nope.

For a number of reasons, I don't believe Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon.  But I don't need to banish him to a vacuum in upstate New York to support the argument. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, JarMan said:

Not really. The original Latin text was produced in the 17th Century. The translation into English could have taken place during multiple events over a period of time. The obvious precedence for this is the 1611 KJB which was produced over a period of a couple of hundred years with several translation events and revisions. 

You lost me at "original Latin text." 

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, Exiled said:

Sure, Mr. Carmack may have found EmodE in the book of mormon but to say that it is impossible for Joseph Smith to have put it in or Oliver Cowdery or some other contemporary is simply a bridge too far.  We weren't there so eliminating possibilities is impossible.

It would be quite nice if someone who believes this could proffer some type of evidence that would make your assertions, your possibilities come anywhere near to being probable. Have you actually read Stanford's essays?

Glenn

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Is there any evidence that Joseph Smith interacted with these folks in any meaningful way and for any appreciable amount of time?  That they shared with him information which he could have used to write the Book of Mormon?

After all he was a full five years old when Hyrum attended the school at Dartmouth (not Dartmouth College itself).

[Exiled]

40 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

It would be quite nice if someone who believes this could proffer some type of evidence that would make your assertions, your possibilities come anywhere near to being probable. Have you actually read Stanford's essays?

Glenn

I've read one of them in the interpreter.  However, at least you agree that possible is always possible, however remote, when dealing with history as none of us were there, but that there is a difference between possible and probable.  As for probability, I don't know how to test that or if there is a way to do so.  It's like divining what influenced Shakespeare, one can only speculate.  In my mind, one must look to the other evidence of historicity and see how the possibilities are remote and then judge what the likely scenario was, given the lack of historicity probability.

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I wouldn't, but then it's no less fanciful a theory than one that relies on the supernatural.

We are examining the logic of an argument. 

If the supernatural is not a valid argument, then you are in the wrong forum.  Examining  the possibility of the supernatural is within the bounds of the forum, but a logical fallacy is not.  If logical fallacies are acceptable as valid arguments, then I am in the wrong forum.

"They both have the name Smith, therefore.....  He lived in the proximity ... therefore....."

Edited March 20, 2018 by cdowis

[Brant Gardner]

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

We need to be more specific about why he, as a trained linguist, thinks these specific types of usages wouldn't go undetected and why you think they would. 

[later]

I think, though, that is unwarranted to assume that Carmack doesn't still have unusually qualified expertise in making judgments about how linguistic extinction and preservation occurs.

Please understand that the methods used for dating are not part of linguists per se. His training in linguistics certainly leads to descriptive analysis, but his use the databases and the analysis of the conflicting data are not questions of linguistics but of a larger methodology. Because one doctor is a podiatrist, I wouldn't expect them to be an expert in cardiology (or vice versa, of course). Without knowing specifically, I suspect that he I may have about the same training in historical linguistics. Remember, the methodology that he is using to verify extinction is not a linguistic methodology. It says nothing about his clear expertise in description to suggest that he is less expert in his discussions of extinction--all of which (as you will remember) are based on an absence of evidence. That necessarily cannot prove an absence in fact, only an absence in the examined evidence.

Quote

Right, but the revelations that come during and after the translation don't imitate archaic Early Modern features consistently. Carmack has shown how, in a number of cases, Joseph opted not to use archaic features that were typical in the Book of Mormon translation.

Not using something consistently is not the same as extinction. Once you suggest that there was an election of choices, we no longer need the pre-Joseph miraculous explanation. The more parsimonious Joseph works better, and more consistently.

Quote

It's that the data can logically be accommodated by both theories without much of a problem. That means that this line of reasoning is inconclusive and that other avenues of research will have to be relied upon much more heavily.

Precisely. 

There are a number of non-syntax/non-vocabulary ways in which we can examine the text of the Book of Mormon to determine the features that point to the translator. I'm sure that Carmack is not completely ignoring them--nor am I. 

Quote

It helps a lot, for example, to have viable examples of loan-shifting when critics laugh at the idea that Lehi's group might have considered a tapir to be a horse. When you can show that hippopotamus is a really a Greek term which means "water horse" and if you can point to a number of other truly analogous examples, then that significantly bolsters loan shifting as a viable possibility.

It might be helpful to understand that the hippopotamus example, although dealing with vocabulary, is not a linguistic problem. It is an anthropological problem and is simply one of the examples of how humans in cross-cultural environments can lexically respond to unknown animals or plants. It wasn't the only solution. Other peoples used other methods (such as incorporating loanwords--which is where English knows the ocelot, and tomato, and chocolat).

Quote

You may be right that these really were features of Joseph's native syntax, but your ability to defend your reliance on the absence of evidence significantly decreases when you can't point to specific analogous situations.

It is certainly a problem when one attempts to build a case on the basis of an absence of evidence. However, in this case I think we have found it in Joseph. The problem is that if you have already decided that it couldn't be Joseph, the conclusion informs the data rather than having the data inform the conclusion.

Quote

the burden of proof weighs more heavily on you to demonstrate that what otherwise seems highly unusual in our textual record, is actually not that significant.  

I think you mistake the nature of the burden of proof. The one proposing the new solution bears the burden of demonstrating the validity of the thesis. I have posited that the descriptive linguistics are not at issue. That leaves the data claiming exclusion and the conclusion drawn from those data. I am explaining why the analysis of the data cannot lead to a firm conclusion. I have provided reasons and examples. Interesting to me is that the best evidence against the methodology comes from the data derived from that methodology.

[jkwilliams]

53 minutes ago, cdowis said:

We are examining the logic of an argument. 

If the supernatural is not a valid argument, then you are in the wrong forum.  Examining  the possibility of the supernatural is within the bounds of the forum, but a logical fallacy is not.  If logical fallacies are acceptable as valid arguments, then I am in the wrong forum.

"They both have the name Smith, therefore.....  He lived in the proximity ... therefore....."

I have not said an appeal to the supernatural is not an argument. Suggesting that a known name such as Nehem may have made its way into a contemporary document is also an argument. Neither is a fallacy. 

[JarMan]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

You lost me at "original Latin text." 

The theory is pretty simple. A 17th Century scholar/prophet wrote it originally in Latin. Then it was translated into English and eventually made its way to Joseph either in manuscript form or through the seer stone.

My scholar/prophet wrote extensively about war, government, the Bible, history, theology, classical tragedies, and ethics. So basically he spent a lifetime studying and writing about every issue and event in the Book of Mormon. The forms of government and cultural practices of the Nephite were those that existed in his own day. The civic strife in the Book of Mormon reflects the very conflicts he faced in his country. The ideals of the Book of Mormon from warfare to government, from theology to scientific ideas are all consistent with his world view as reflected in his own writings and the writings of his associates.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, JarMan said:

The theory is pretty simple. A 17th Century scholar/prophet wrote it originally in Latin. Then it was translated into English and eventually made its way to Joseph either in manuscript form or through the seer stone.

My scholar/prophet wrote extensively about war, government, the Bible, history, theology, classical tragedies, and ethics. So basically he spent a lifetime studying and writing about every issue and event in the Book of Mormon. The forms of government and cultural practices of the Nephite were those that existed in his own day. The civic strife in the Book of Mormon reflects the very conflicts he faced in his country. The ideals of the Book of Mormon from warfare to government, from theology to scientific ideas are all consistent with his world view as reflected in his own writings and the writings of his associates.

It’s also pretty consistent with 19th-century mythology and religious beliefs. Just saying. 

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I doubt Joseph ever went to Dartmouth campus. He would have been between 6-11 years old. Hyrum would have been 11-17 years old when he attended Moor's Charity School at Dartmouth. Joseph Smith Sr. would have been, well, much older. 

Point is, for 6 years the Smiths lived 5 miles from a college campus full of scholars, missionaries and even Native Americans that spoke Hebrew, Latin, Greek and Aramaic. They weren't villagers stuck in a information black hole, limited to what they could find in that oft-mentioned Palmyra library. 

Joseph didn't have any training in foreign languages, but Hiram probably did. I believe languages were mandatory for all students at Moors and Dartmouth. There would have been thousands of people walking around town with some training in Hebrew. But its doubtful Joseph Jr. would have noticed. 

I think he made wooden chairs. So a carpenter?

He wrote the first draft of his "Hebrew Grammar without Points" when he was a junior at Dartmouth. So he must have been 19-20 years old. He also wrote his Aramaic (Chaldee) Grammar around the same time. It was said that Latin, Greek, and Hebrew were almost as familiar to him as his native language and that he clearly comprehended the Samaritan and Chaldaic; and far extended his researches in Arabic. But this was later in life.

Point is, he was a Smith, and he still managed to learn enough to write the entire curriculum for Dartmouth along with a comprehensive set of theological lectures, grammar books for Hebrew, Latin and Aramaic. I think he even wrote a few plays, and published a couple orations by Cicero, with notes. So I imagine he was at least somewhat familiar with literature, including EmodE. He owned a bookstore and was also the Dartmouth librarian. So he surely wasn't ignorant of such things.

Thank you for revealing the truth.  To draw a parallel with Joseph is, at best, very deceptive.

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, Brant Gardner said:

 

I appreciate the time you have taken to articulate your views and respond to questions. I don't think we are quite in agreement, but I definitely understand better than before where your and Carmack's translation theories differ. Thanks Brant. 

[JarMan]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

It’s also pretty consistent with 19th-century mythology and religious beliefs. Just saying. 

Actually it’s not. And I’ll start with one example, which is the ideal form of government and its relation to the religious powers. In Joseph’s world the ideal government was a representative democracy. And the church and state were to be separate. The Book of Mormon ideal government is a righteous king who controls the actions of the church. Second best is a system of multi-leveled judges appointed by the voice of the people who control the affairs of the church. Either way, the ideal government controls the affairs of the church.

Now let’s examine the ideal government and its relation to the church from a 16th/17th Century Erasman view. The ideal system of government under this school of thought is a righteous king that controls the affairs of the church. Second best is a non-monarchical system that reflects the will of the people. In either case, the government is to direct the church. In other words the Erasman view is perfectly consistent with the Book of Mormon view. The 19th Century American view, on the other hand, is wholly inconsistent.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, JarMan said:

Actually it’s not. And I’ll start with one example, which is the ideal form of government and its relation to the religious powers. In Joseph’s world the ideal government was a representative democracy. And the church and state were to be separate. The Book of Mormon ideal government is a righteous king who controls the actions of the church. Second best is a system of multi-leveled judges appointed by the voice of the people who control the affairs of the church. Either way, the ideal government controls the affairs of the church.

Now let’s examine the ideal government and its relation to the church from a 16th/17th Century Erasman view. The ideal system of government under this school of thought is a righteous king that controls the affairs of the church. Second best is a non-monarchical system that reflects the will of the people. In either case, the government is to direct the church. In other words the Erasman view is perfectly consistent with the Book of Mormon view. The 19th Century American view, on the other hand, is wholly inconsistent.

Not inconsistent at all with Nauvoo-era government. It’s really easy to draw parallels to just about anywhere and any time. Funny how that works.