Evidence #1: Hebrew and Egyptian Wordplays

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I think you know what I meant: supernatural (miraculous, outside the bounds of known natural law, etc.). I'm sure there are laws that explain it, they just aren't laws known to mortals. The miracle isn't necessarily the nature of the translation itself (although there may be aspects of it still that are beyond any mortal), but how such a translation would flow out of Joseph Smith's mouth, day after day, in a rapid paced dictation, apparently without notes or reference materials. There is a reason why Welch's book Opening the Heavens is subtitled "Accounts of Divine Manifestations." 

Normative Judeo-Christian dogma actually posits miracles (law-abrogating acts and a supernatural God), while LDS theology takes a starkly different approach, making everything in the universe naturalistic, including God.  Of course Mormons normally speak as though miracles exist, in line with your understanding.

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Again, an unnecessary assumption. God usually uses human beings for mortal tasks. However, when it comes to profound miracles, angelic beings are often involved, sometimes resurrected, sometimes translated, and sometimes as spirits. Humans are only responsible for the human aspect of temple work, but how many stories have we heard about people getting help from the other side in such projects.

Joseph Smith was responsible for protecting the plates and dictating the translation. However, it seems quite unnecessary and premature to assume that the translation of the text was accomplished in the EModE period. It's possible, certainly, but definitely not a necessary, or in my opinion, even a likely assumption. 

Earthly temple work must be done by humans in this life, no matter what sort of assistance they receive.  All revelations come to human agents (prophets), regardless of the intermediaries.  All Scripture is inspired by God, but is always delivered to man in flawed human language and understanding (D&C 1:24, 2 Nephi 31:3).  If the original translation had been done in the early 19th century, it would be in the language of that time and that place (Joseph Smith).  When, for example, God wants Jaredite records translated, he has Mosiah I and Benjamin do it.  I  know of no exceptions to those rules.  That is the economy of God.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, my point exactly. All we have is one person's statements, and we have no way of knowing whether they are justified, let alone a slam dunk. They are interesting and may merit further research, but at this stage, they are tenuous assertions.

You miss the point:  The assertions may be tenuous or rock solid.  How would we  know the difference?  Perception is everything.  Substance means nothing.  The reception history of the BofM is filled with misunderstandings of many kinds, which are not based on a substantive engagement with the text. Who has the time to bother with preparation for substantive engagement?  In any case, scholars do not deal in "slam dunks."

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

You miss the point:  The assertions may be tenuous or rock solid.  How would we  know the difference?  Perception is everything.  Substance means nothing.  The reception history of the BofM is filled with misunderstandings of many kinds, which are not based on a substantive engagement with the text. Who has the time to bother with preparation for substantive engagement?  In any case, scholars do not deal in "slam dunks."

I agree. I just find it odd that these particular extrapolations from the text are proclaimed as "slam-dunks" (not my word, by the way). 

[Robert F. Smith]

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I agree. I just find it odd that these particular extrapolations from the text are proclaimed as "slam-dunks" (not my word, by the way). 

Perhaps that is because every Mormon cultural hall is also a basketball court, where slam dunks take place.  Makes it almost a religious concept.

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Perhaps that is because every Mormon cultural hall is also a basketball court, where slam dunks take place.  Makes it almost a religious concept.

In my home stake, there were a lot more fistfights than slam dunks on our basketball courts.  My home stake used to put on a holiday basketball tournament for wards all over Southern California, and we young men helped with scorekeeping, etc. One year they had to call the police to escort a referee (a man from my ward) out of the building because a losing team was threatening to kill him. 

[california boy]

In the OP, you asked this question

Quote

In a previous thread, I asked for feedback about why some individuals, especially members of the LDS church who are in the throes of a faith crisis or who are distancing themselves from LDS beliefs, decline to investigate evidences supporting the historicity of LDS Restoration texts or the miraculous nature of Joseph Smith's translations.

Then in the first paragraph of your OP you stated this.

Quote

The Book of Mormon begins with a declaration that it is being written in the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians (1 Nephi 1:2). Near the end of the book, Moroni indicates that he knew Hebrew but that he was writing in "reformed Egyptian" (Mormon 9:32), suggesting that whatever form the final text took, Hebrew and Egyptian were understood by Book of Mormon authors throughout their approximately 1,000 year history.

I am not here to tear down anyone's beliefs, but if you want a straight forward answer to your opening question, I will give you mine.  All my life I was taught that the  American Indians, and the natives of Central and South America are descendants of the BoM Lamanites.  One of the first missions Joseph Smith sent anyone on was a mission to these Lamonites.  Yet if this people lived for 1000 years using Reformed Egyptian and understanding Hebrew, why has no evidence of Reformed Egyptian or Hebrew ever in the past almost 200 years  been found, when evidence of the language of almost every other civilization has been found. 

Your basic premise for the research you offer screams a problem in actual evidence of the claims of Joseph Smith.  Do you see how someone who is questioning the story of the restored gospel would look at this litany of research more like the magic 8 ball where every answer that comes up is somehow insightful and prophetic?

Like I stated, I am not here to question anyone's beliefs, but I am just giving insight to the question you ask.  You may be unsatisfied with this evaluation of what you obviously have put a lot of thought and belief in, but I don't think you will find the answer to your question simply defending the conclusions you individually have come to.  Hope that is helpful.

 

 

Edited July 5, 2018 by california boy

[Ryan Dahle]

51 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You miss the point:  The assertions may be tenuous or rock solid.  How would we  know the difference?  Perception is everything.  Substance means nothing.  The reception history of the BofM is filled with misunderstandings of many kinds, which are not based on a substantive engagement with the text. Who has the time to bother with preparation for substantive engagement?

I suppose that this is sort of my point. Those on their way out of the church often have no idea whether or not the scholarly evidences supporting some of its foundational claims are valid or not. Yet, usually after not very much study and at all, they feel very confident that such evidences are tenuous, trivial, or not worth engaging. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Ryan Dahle said:

I suppose that this is sort of my point. Those on their way out of the church often have no idea whether or not the scholarly evidences supporting some of its foundational claims are valid or not. Yet, usually after not very much study and at all, they feel very confident that such evidences are tenuous, trivial, or not worth engaging. 

I'd be careful about painting with that broad a brush, although you are giving me a better idea of where you're coming from. 

[Ryan Dahle]

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am not here to tear down anyone's beliefs, but if you want a straight forward answer to your opening question, I will give you mine.  All my life I was taught that the  American Indians, and the natives of Central and South America are descendants of the BoM Lamanites.  One of the first missions Joseph Smith sent anyone on was a mission to these Lamonites.  Yet if this people lived for 1000 years using Reformed Egyptian and understanding Hebrew, why has no evidence of Reformed Egyptian or Hebrew ever in the past almost 200 years  been found, when evidence of the language of almost every other civilization has been found. 

I guess my follow up questions are: 

1. Why do you feel qualified to make such linguistic assessments in the first place? Before reaching this conclusion, did you make any efforts at all in studying diachronic shift or the known causes for language extinction? Did you carefully study how language is spoken of in the text itself, and consider the fact that the Nephite prophetic scribal practices may not have been the common language used by Nephite or Lamanite societies?  

2. Are you so sure that there is currently no evidence of Reformed Egyptian or Hebrew in relevant Native American languages?

You don't have to answer or defend your views, but these questions seemed relevant.  

Edited July 5, 2018 by Ryan Dahle

[CA Steve]

15 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I suppose that this is sort of my point. Those on their way out of the church often have no idea whether or not the scholarly evidences supporting some of its foundational claims are valid or not. Yet, usually after not very much study and at all, they feel very confident that such evidences are tenuous, trivial, or not worth engaging. 

We accept converts into this church based on no more than a cursory knowledge of the church and it's history, if that. The criteria for conversion is one of faith profession which is not based on extensive investigations into evidence for or against the church. Why can't those who leave the church do so on basically the same terms? Why can't those who perform a perfunctory  study to get into the church, leave in confidence  based on the same effort?

[Ryan Dahle]

1 minute ago, CA Steve said:

We accept converts into this church based on no more than a cursory knowledge of the church and it's history, if that. The criteria for conversion is one of faith profession which is not based on extensive investigations into evidence for or against the church. Why can't those who leave the church do so on basically the same terms? Why can't those who perform a perfunctory  study to get into the church, leave in confidence  based on the same effort?

I think you forgot why people do join the church, though. They join because of a spiritual witness communicated to them by the power of the Holy Ghost. In contrast, they often leave because they encounter information that makes them question their witness. Hence, for those who felt they had genuine spiritual experiences at their conversion and afterwords, it may seem prudent to seriously investigate the information that seems to support their testimony, as well as the information that seems to undermine it. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I think you forgot why people do join the church, though. They join because of a spiritual witness communicated to them by the power of the Holy Ghost. In contrast, they often leave because they encounter information that makes them question their witness. Hence, for those who felt they had genuine spiritual experiences at their conversion and afterwords, it may seem prudent to seriously investigate the information that seems to support their testimony, as well as the information that seems to undermine it. 

Maybe it’s just me, but this seems like a rehash of the accusation that people who leave are lazy and intransigent. I don’t find that conducive to having a conversation about and with people who leave. 

[california boy]

20 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I guess my follow up questions are: 

1. Why do you feel qualified to make such linguistic assessments in the first place? Before reaching this conclusion, did you make any efforts at all in studying diachronic shift or the known causes for language extinction? Did you carefully study how language is spoken of in the text itself, and consider the fact that the Nephite prophetic scribal practices may not have been the common language used by Nephite or Lamanite societies?  

2. Are you so sure that there is currently no evidence of Reformed Egyptian or Hebrew in relevant Native American languages?

You don't have to answer or defend your views, but these questions seemed relevant.  

I think you entirely missed the point of my post.  I was answering your question, not evaluating your evidence.

[Ryan Dahle]

22 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Maybe it’s just me, but this seems like a rehash of the accusation that people who leave are lazy and intransigent. I don’t find that conducive to having a conversation about and with people who leave.

I didn't say anything about laziness or intransigence. Many of the individuals I know, who leave without studying the scholarly evidences in support of their former faith, seem to have been very diligent when it comes to studying anti-Mormon literature. And obviously they aren't completely intransigent, otherwise they wouldn't have changed their minds in the first place. 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Ryan Dahle

[Ryan Dahle]

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think you entirely missed the point of my post.  I was answering your question, not evaluating your evidence.

Well I appreciate your answer. I wasn't dismissing it. I was just asking follow up questions about your reasoning. You gave a reason, and I genuinely wanted to know more about it.

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I didn't say anything about laziness or intransigence. Many of the individuals I know, who leave without studying the scholarly evidences in support of their former faith, seem to have been very diligent when it comes to studying anti-Mormon literature. And obviously they aren't completely intransigent, otherwise they wouldn't have changed their minds in the first place. 

Perhaps you should be asking why the pro-LDS evidence seems unimpressive while the anti-LDS information seems devastating for a lot of people. 

[Ryan Dahle]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Perhaps you should be asking why the pro-LDS evidence seems unimpressive while the anti-LDS information seems devastating for a lot of people.

Well, such a question would be pertinent if more people on their way out of the Church were to actually study and engage with pro-LDS scholarship to any significant degree. It's pretty hard, though, for someone to be impressed by evidences or arguments that he or she isn't willing to seriously study. 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Ryan Dahle

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Ryan Dahle said:

Well, such a question would be pertinent if more people on their way out of the Church were to actually study and engage with pro-LDS scholarship to any significant degree. It's pretty hard, though, to be impressed by evidences or arguments that one isn't willing to seriously study. 

Why do you think this is? I could explain to you why, after so many years of engagement with both sides, the evidences you espouse seem fairly trivial, but then I’m not your target demographic. 

[CA Steve]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Why do you think this is? I could explain to you why, after so many years of engagement with both sides, the evidences you espouse seem fairly trivial, but then I’m not your target demographic. 

I think his target demographic is a bit extreme. And, frankly, I am not sure there really is that big of a group of members who are leaving or have left, that have all had genuine conversion experiences, spent a lot of time studying anti-Mormon literature and were not willing to study any pro LDS sources.

My experience with those few who I know who have left is that many of them found a single issue which was a concern, turned to LDS apologetic sources for answers and ran right smack into a whole bunch of other issues they didn't even know existed.

 

The other ambiguous thing here is his use of the term "anti-Mormon literature". What are we talking about here? My faithful TBM father would consider Rough Stone Rolling anti-Mormon, because it presents a view of the church history he does not believe happened. Are we talking about people like Vogel, Marquardt and Quinn? Or are these people to whom he is referring just jumping around on the web believing everything they read? It seems like he is lumping a whole lot into "ant-Mormon" without really defining what it is these doubters are reading.

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

We accept converts into this church based on no more than a cursory knowledge of the church and it's history, if that. The criteria for conversion is one of faith profession which is not based on extensive investigations into evidence for or against the church. Why can't those who leave the church do so on basically the same terms? Why can't those who perform a perfunctory  study to get into the church, leave in confidence  based on the same effort?

Yep. The reasons for leaving are as numerous as the people leaving. The common thread for people who were previously active as adults is that the decision to leave is terribly painful. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, CA Steve said:

I think his target demographic is a bit extreme. And, frankly, I am not sure there really is that big of a group of members who are leaving or have left, that have all had genuine conversion experiences, spent a lot of time studying anti-Mormon literature and were not willing to study any pro LDS sources.

My experience with those few who I know who have left is that many of them found a single issue which was a concern, turned to LDS apologetic sources for answers and ran right smack into a whole bunch of other issues they didn't even know existed.

 

The other ambiguous thing here is his use of the term "anti-Mormon literature". What are we talking about here? My faithful TBM father would consider Rough Stone Rolling anti-Mormon, because it presents a view of the church history he does not believe happened. Are we talking about people like Vogel, Marquardt and Quinn? Or are these people to whom he is referring just jumping around on the web believing everything they read? It seems like he is lumping a whole lot into "ant-Mormon" without really defining what it is these doubters are reading.

Agreed. You and I have pretty similar experiences, and we’ve seen a lot. What I haven’t seen is a lot of people who grabbed hold of “anti” material and resisted the temptation to read any apologetics. 

[Ryan Dahle]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Agreed. You and I have pretty similar experiences, and we’ve seen a lot. What I haven’t seen is a lot of people who grabbed hold of “anti” material and resisted the temptation to read any apologetics. 

Well, I think you all have sufficiently responded to the evidences I produced. And I appreciate that. I doubt I will get more feedback from this board that will provide me with a different perspective than you have all collectively provided. I conceived of this as sort of a short term project to try to better understand where people are coming from, and I think that goal has been met. I don't have a lot of time right now for this and probably won't in the future, but thanks for the responses.  

[jkwilliams]

20 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Well, I think you all have sufficiently responded to the evidences I produced. And I appreciate that. I doubt I will get more feedback from this board that will provide me with a different perspective than you have all collectively provided. I conceived of this as sort of a short term project to try to better understand where people are coming from, and I think that goal has been met. I don't have a lot of time right now for this and probably won't in the future, but thanks for the responses.  

Well, then, I wish you the best. 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

LDS theology rejects supernaturalism. 

Would you see substituting "divine" where many use "supernatural" appropriate?  What about "miraculous"?

I am biased for "divine" myself as that limits discussion to the who (either acted upon by God or with his power) and doesn't get into the "how" which is guesswork at best.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Well, such a question would be pertinent if more people on their way out of the Church were to actually study and engage with pro-LDS scholarship to any significant degree. It's pretty hard, though, for someone to be impressed by evidences or arguments that he or she isn't willing to seriously study. 

I think it is hard for such members, for several reasons. One is the information is not really readily available. There are numerous sites where people can go and be challenged with a laundry list of challenges to the veracity of the restored gospel and church. I don't think there is a single site where anyone can go to see all the evidence you are presenting unless it is on BoMCentral already - which I haven't seen. The fact that people get convinced by arguments such as there are more than 4000 changes to the "most correct book" is I think a testament to the need of a coherent reply. I believe the work you are doing to be important.

38 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Well, I think you all have sufficiently responded to the evidences I produced. And I appreciate that. I doubt I will get more feedback from this board that will provide me with a different perspective than you have all collectively provided. I conceived of this as sort of a short term project to try to better understand where people are coming from, and I think that goal has been met. I don't have a lot of time right now for this and probably won't in the future, but thanks for the responses.  

I hope you are not saying good bye. I hope you continue with new threads such as Evidence #2, etc. Someone needs to compile the evidence or else all the investigator sees is the "pile of evidence" against the Church, and nothing in response. While Fair does relevant work, every improvement we make to the LDS side of the picture is important. For instance my dad became overly influenced by a story about the Spaulding manuscript. I don't think he ever realized the evidence about this story basically being a fraud perpetrated against the Church by Hurlbutt - nor that the real manuscript currently sits in the Oberlin Library for all to see. These types of facts add important context to a story. Now the Spalding manuscript story is little used by Church critics, because I think it shows how unfair Church detractors have been. I am not saying my father resisted reading apologetic material, but it needs to be prepared and readily available. This is how I respond to comments like those made by JK Williams above.

When critics say "I believe JS made up the BoM" investigators need evidence to show the unlikelihood of such a claim. I believe this is where the importance of your work lies. As LDS continue to make valid responses to baseless or highly dubious claims, the future position of the Church can only grow stronger.