hope_for_things Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 4 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: As soon as you concede that Joseph wasn't responsible for the text, you are the one who has to make some very huge leaps trying to come up with a valid historical argument for someone else who was responsible. Those who believe the English text of the BofM was divinely revealed to Joseph Smith have the clear advantage in that they don't have to try to come up with elaborate theories about who created the text, how it got to Joseph Smith, and how Joseph dictated it in the manner described by the witnesses. The historical sources work perfectly if God simply revealed the text to Joseph in the manner he described, through the translation instruments. Can you present a coherent theory about how such a text got into Joseph's possession and how he produced it without making "huge leaps" of pure speculation at almost every turn? Nothing elaborate about explaining it from my perspective, its really just the simpliest answer. Joseph said he dictated the text to his scribes, and I believe Joseph. He did. He's the source. Pretty simple to me.
Ryan Dahle Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: 50 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I'm not going to argue with you, Stan, about the occurrence of EModE in the text. As I said, for argument's sake, I'm conceding that the EModE theory is valid, but it's a long way from saying it's a translation of an ancient record or that the Lord is the source. That's a huge leap, IMO. Totally agree, if it was a 17th century text, then Joseph obtained it and dictated it to scribes. That doesn't make the source an ancient text, thats still a question that requires answering all the modern Christian theology, dependence on the KJV, anachronisms. It just pushes things back a few hundred years. Unfortunately there is just too much of Joseph and contemporary 19th century material in there for it to be a 17th century text. Unless someone is suggesting its a combination of 17th century produced material and 19th century produced material. Which is a huge stretch anyway. And then you still have to try and prove its ancient. Way too convoluted. Honestly, most of the proposals for ancient material are way more significant than proposals for 19th century connections. KJV intertextuality isn't a problem with a revealed translation. Anachronisms rely upon absences of evidence in archaeological settings with limited data, as well as dubious assumptions about the translation, rendering most of them moot, especially considering how often the tables have turned and transformed them into good evidence. A divine translation could have multiple reasons for a combination of EModE and modern features. Heck, lots of 19th century translations of ancient work attempt to use archaic language. And no one has to "prove" its ancient. But scholars have certainly found many good reasons to assume that it is authentically ancient, reasons which you mostly have dismissed from a distance, as far as I can tell.
Ryan Dahle Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Nothing elaborate about explaining it from my perspective, its really just the simpliest answer. Joseph said he dictated the text to his scribes, and I believe Joseph. He did. He's the source. Pretty simple to me. Well, you have to confront the archaic linguistic data that conflicts with your view and jkwilliams has to confront the strong historical data that conflicts with his. Either way, you both are going to have to make some "huge leaps."
smac97 Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Nothing elaborate about explaining it from my perspective, its really just the simpliest answer. Joseph said he dictated the text to his scribes, and I believe Joseph. He did. He's the source. Pretty simple to me. Joseph also said that he dictated the text in less than sixty working days. Joseph also had a fairly limited education. Joseph's scribes also said that he never doubled back on the text or, having returned from taking a break from translating, to be prompted as to where he had left off. See here: Quote The dictation flowed smoothly. From the surviving portions of the Original Manuscript it appears that Joseph dictated about a dozen words at a time. Oliver would read those words back for verification, and then they would go on. Emma later added that after a meal or a night's rest, Joseph would begin, without prompting, where he had previously left off (The Saints' Herald 26 [Oct. 1, 1879]:290). No time was taken for research, internal cross-checking, or editorial rewriting. In 1834 Oliver wrote: "These were days never to be forgotten-to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth as he translated" (Messenger and Advocate 1 [Oct. 1834]:14). Emma apparently did not believe Joseph was, or could have been, "the source." See here: Quote Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter, let alone dictate a book like the Book of Mormon. And, though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, and was present during the translation of the plates, and had cognizance of things as they transpired, it is marvelous to me, 'a marvel and a wonder,' as much so as to anyone else.[3] And so on. Lots of questions here. So Joseph Smith being the source is not "pretty simple" after all. Thanks, -Smac
jkwilliams Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 Just now, Ryan Dahle said: Honestly, most of the proposals for ancient material are way more significant than proposals for 19th century connections. KJV intertextuality isn't a problem with a revealed translation. Anachronisms rely upon absences of evidence in archaeological settings with limited data, as well as dubious assumptions about the translation, rendering most of them moot, especially considering how often the tables have turned and transformed them into good evidence. A divine translation could have multiple reasons for a combination of EModE and modern features. Heck, lots of 19th century translations of ancient work attempt to use archaic language. And no one has to "prove" its ancient. But scholars have certainly found many good reasons to assume that it is authentically ancient, reasons which you mostly have dismissed from a distance, as far as I can tell. Again, you assume we critics aren’t familiar with apologetic arguments, which I find weird. That we don’t find “proposals for ancient material” compelling doesnt mean we haven’t considered them. 1
jkwilliams Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 1 minute ago, Ryan Dahle said: Well, you have to confront the archaic linguistic data that conflicts with your view and jkwilliams has to confront the strong historical data that conflicts with his. Either way, you both are going to have to make some "huge leaps." Again, what strong historical data conflicts with my view? And what leaps are required?
Ryan Dahle Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: I'm not going to argue with you, Stan, about the occurrence of EModE in the text. As I said, for argument's sake, I'm conceding that the EModE theory is valid, but it's a long way from saying it's a translation of an ancient record or that the Lord is the source. That's a huge leap, IMO. You said you conceded that the EModE theory is valid, for the sake of argument, and a major implication of the EModE theory (as advanced by Carmack/Skousen) is that a divine English translation was revealed to Joseph Smith. If you think he produced all these EModE features, you have to make some huge leaps explaining how.
Ryan Dahle Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Again, you assume we critics aren’t familiar with apologetic arguments, which I find weird. That we don’t find “proposals for ancient material” compelling doesnt mean we haven’t considered them. I assume that you aren't nearly as familiar with many of them as you think, and that you often dismiss most of them without due consideration.
jkwilliams Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: You said you conceded that the EModE theory is valid, for the sake of argument, and a major implication of the EModE theory (as advanced by Carmack/Skousen) is that a divine English translation was revealed to Joseph Smith. If you think he produced all these EModE features, you have to make some huge leaps explaining how. Sorry, I don’t think that’s a major implication at all. It’s a non sequitur.
jkwilliams Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: I assume that you aren't nearly as familiar with many of them as you think, and that you often dismiss most of them without due consideration. Well, you would be wrong in your assumption.
ttribe Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 1 hour ago, why me said: I think that the lds church has clipped the sails of the critics because of the new openness about church history. The critics can no longer claim the hidden history line. However, I will be the first to admit that the critics and their use of the internet has made the church change its tactics and address the problematic history. But what to moan about now? Social issues and abuse seems to be the strategy for the critics. You completely dodged the substance of my question - Do you really believe that the majority of the Church's membership would no longer be surprised the issues frequently raised by critics?
ttribe Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 6 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: I assume that you aren't nearly as familiar with many of them as you think, and that you often dismiss most of them without due consideration. Oh, boy...you really need to do your homework about people before you say these things. 1
Ryan Dahle Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Well, you would be wrong in your assumption. I think we have different ideas about "due consideration." But even if you studied them further, I doubt you are in a state of mind to accept them.
Ryan Dahle Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 17 minutes ago, ttribe said: 24 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: I assume that you aren't nearly as familiar with many of them as you think, and that you often dismiss most of them without due consideration. Oh, boy...you really need to do your homework about people before you say these things. He and I have already had a number of interactions about various topics.
ttribe Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 8 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: He and I have already had a number of interactions about various topics. But, you obviously do not know his history, his past involvement as an apologist, or the depth of his knowledge. In short, it seems you made a judgement on his alleged lack of familiarity based primarily (solely?) on the fact that he does not reach the same conclusions as you. That's just plain sloppy.
Ryan Dahle Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 (edited) 37 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Sorry, I don’t think that’s a major implication at all. It’s a non sequitur. Can you find any other English text, written by a non-scholar novice, that has anywhere close to this degree of extrabiblical archaism? I highly doubt it. The BofM's level of archaism well exceeds that of the tested pseudobibilcal texts of his day, which were written by authors with more experience and who had the convenience of editing and revising their work. If you want to disagree with the standard linguistic assumptions about the nature of syntax which underly Carmack's linguistic arguments that is fine, but you need to realize that your assumptions conflict with the assumptions held be professional linguists. And so far, I haven't seen any arguments which don't have to make "huge leaps" of speculation to get around the data. Edited August 10, 2018 by Ryan Dahle
Ryan Dahle Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 1 minute ago, ttribe said: But, you obviously do not know his history, his past involvement as an apologist, or the depth of his knowledge. In short, it seems you made a judgement on his alleged lack of familiarity based primarily (solely?) on the fact that he does not reach the same conclusions as you. That's just plain sloppy. Actually, I have reached my conclusion based on the evidence and argumentation that he has used to support his ideas. And, yes, I was aware that he has had a long history in studying apologetic arguments.
jkwilliams Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 4 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: Can you find any other English text, written by a non-scholar novice, that has anywhere close to this degree of extrabiblical archaism? I highly doubt it. The BofM's level of archaism well exceeds that of the tested pseudobibilcal texts of his day, which were written by authors with more experience and who had the convenience of editing and revising their work. If you want to disagree with the standard linguistic assumptions about the nature of syntax which underly Carmack's linguistic arguments that is fine, but you need to realize that your assumptions conflict with the assumptions held be professional linguists. And so far, I haven't seen any arguments which don't have to make "huge leaps" of speculation to get around the data. Good heavens! Where is this coming from? That I don’t think EModE in the Book of Mormon means it is revealed scripture has nothing to do with linguistics. If true, it is interesting but certainly doesn’t imply revelation.
jkwilliams Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 4 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: Actually, I have reached my conclusion based on the evidence and argumentation that he has used to support his ideas. And, yes, I was aware that he has had a long history in studying apologetic arguments. I don’t think you know much about me at all.
jkwilliams Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, ttribe said: But, you obviously do not know his history, his past involvement as an apologist, or the depth of his knowledge. In short, it seems you made a judgement on his alleged lack of familiarity based primarily (solely?) on the fact that he does not reach the same conclusions as you. That's just plain sloppy. I think he’s basing his judgment on a few posts on this board. I don’t have the time or interest to do any in-depth discussion of apologetics, so if I seem dismissive, that’s probably why. Suffice it to say that if you’re going to make fantastical claims about a pre-Columbian civilization you need to have better evidence than “wordplay” and NHM. Edited August 10, 2018 by jkwilliams
CA Steve Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 1 minute ago, jkwilliams said: Good heavens! Where is this coming from? That I don’t think EModE in the Book of Mormon means it is revealed scripture has nothing to do with linguistics. If true, it is interesting but certainly doesn’t imply revelation. That's the kicker here. AFAIK neither Skousen nor Carmak have ever stated that the existence of EMOD in the Book of Mormon is proof of divine intervention. What we see instead is others citing their work and then acting as if that is the only possible or even the most probable interpretation that it is there. As if EMOD in the Book of Mormon could not be there for any other reason.
Ryan Dahle Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 1 minute ago, jkwilliams said: Good heavens! Where is this coming from? That I don’t think EModE in the Book of Mormon means it is revealed scripture has nothing to do with linguistics. If true, it is interesting but certainly doesn’t imply revelation. It's about the explanatory power of competing theories. The Carmack/Skousen theory can easily account for the linguistic and historical data. If you think that Joseph Smith himself produced the archaisms in the text, then that conflicts with the linguistic data and the standard linguistic assumptions which support the Carmack/Skousen theory. If you think Joseph Smith somehow came into possession of the BofM text, which was produced by someone else, then that will require wild speculation to get around the historical data.
jkwilliams Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: It's about the explanatory power of competing theories. The Carmack/Skousen theory can easily account for the linguistic and historical data. If you think that Joseph Smith himself produced the archaisms in the text, then that conflicts with the linguistic data and the standard linguistic assumptions which support the Carmack/Skousen theory. If you think Joseph Smith somehow came into possession of the BofM text, which was produced by someone else, then that will require wild speculation to get around the historical data. Why would that require wild speculation?
ttribe Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I think he’s basing his judgment on a few posts on this board. I don’t have the time or interest to do any in-depth discussion of apologetics, so if I seem dismissive, that’s probably why. Suffice it to say that if you’re going to make fantastical claims about a pre-Columbian civilization you need to have better evidence than “wordplay” and NHM. That much is painfully obvious from his condescending replies to you. 1
jkwilliams Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 5 minutes ago, CA Steve said: That's the kicker here. AFAIK neither Skousen nor Carmak have ever stated that the existence of EMOD in the Book of Mormon is proof of divine intervention. What we see instead is others citing their work and then acting as if that is the only possible or even the most probable interpretation that it is there. As if EMOD in the Book of Mormon could not be there for any other reason. Exactly. It boggles the mind that there can be no explanation (beyond wild speculation) other than divine intervention.
Recommended Posts