The State of Mormon Apologetics

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Your just repeating yourself, reminiscing on the younger you, without actually making a case for why a translation can't be dynamic. 

I didn't say the translation can't be dynamic. I said it's problematic, for the reasons I said. And besides, I thought being repetitive would give my posts a certain Hebraic quality.

[champatsch]

John, since 2010 have you carefully and systematically analyzed the dictation text, comparing it with the relevant textual databases that didn't exist in the 1990s and 2000s?

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, champatsch said:

John, since 2010 have you carefully and systematically analyzed the dictation text, comparing it with the relevant textual databases that didn't exist in the 1990s and 2000s?

No, I have not. I'm not sure how that invalidates what I said about an ad hoc approach to the translation process. 

[champatsch]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

No, I have not. I'm not sure how that invalidates what I said about an ad hoc approach to the translation process. 

I wasn't addressing your points about the character of the translation.

The text can be analyzed without regard to whether it was translated. The nature of the translation is a secondary concern.  I was just trying to clarify your level of knowledge of the primary subject matter.  Now it is known.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, champatsch said:

I wasn't addressing your points about the character of the translation.

The text can be analyzed without regard to whether it was translated. The nature of the translation is a secondary concern.  I was just trying to clarify your level of knowledge of the primary subject matter.  Now it is known.

I readily admit to being an ignoramus where linguistics are concerned. My questions to you have almost always been about what we can conclude from your studies. 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I'm not sure why you see this as a vicious cycle. There is nothing very abnormal about a translation that vacillates between loose and tight.

The issue isn't a vacillation between tight or loose being vicious. Rather it's the epistemological argument about when this is happening. The way you've presented it anything that requires tight is tight and anything that requires loose is loose in terms of grounding apologetic arguments. This ends up being ad hoc and circular logic. Further typically those making arguments about Hebrewisms don't even engage the issue. The null hypothesis should be that these are artifacts of quotations, paraphrases and/or stylistic borrowing to make a pseudo-KJV text. If one doesn't engage the null hypothesis and at least argue why in this particularity that's unlikely, then it seems that epistemologically one is on sandy ground. 

At best (IMO) we're at an early stage of hypothesis formulation where one is finding things that could be Hebraisms without taking the next (harder) step of analyzing each more carefully. I should note that this is a constant problem in Mormon apologetics. You see it for instance in places like horse bone dating where people tend to point to places where evidence might be without taking the next step of dating the bones themselves in a peer reviewed fashion. If one reads through the myriad of paper, reviews and notes from FARMS, the Interpreter and other publications one quickly sees a lot that's a good reason to do research on that topic but not take as a conclusion. By way of analogy, it's akin to mouse studies in medicine. Finding something that works in a mouse study is a great reason to study the phenomena in question in humans. It's almost never a good reason to assume the mouse results say anything about human biology. (Despite news media often doing just that) In an analogous fashion, far too much of apologetics is finding first steps rather than doing the hard work of seeing if the path is valid.

I'd add that's not just characteristic of apologetics. I think you see it in other areas. So to me, Quinn's Mormonism and the Magic World View, was really interesting for suggesting further research, but rather problematic both in terms of thematics as well as parallels in giving us persuasive theories. Fortunately people have done more work along those lines there. I wish we had as much in apologetics. (Although it's somewhat understandable given the lack of respect apologetics sadly gets - that makes it hard for BYU professors to give it the amount of time they might like. Not to mention how many people have non-academic jobs and do it on the side in an amateur or hobbyist way)

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

If either option is perfectly acceptable (in principle), then why not let other data determine what is most likely in a given circumstance.

Right, but the question is what other data is in question? We have to be careful that the conclusions of an argument aren't used as evidence for that same argument. That's what a vicious circle is. Now if one has some other criteria for whether a translation is loose or tight in content then that's fine. That's not what's happening though. Indeed the nature of the translation is typically never even brought up.

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Does systematic stylometric analysis demonstrate distinct voices based on function words? Yes. Mostly likely tight translation.

That doesn't follow at all that I can see. I'm open for the argument for it though. After all in fiction we have stylized differences for voice. It seems to follow that stylistic differences for voice in a loose translation would also manifest stylometric differences. (I'm here assuming that by function words you mean words not essential for meaning which is the usual basis of stylometry)

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Are there numerous examples of viable proposals for Hebrew/Egyptian wordplays? Yes. Mostly likely tight translation.

That definitely doesn't follow unless one first eliminates the null hypothesis of either KJV quotations, paraphrases or expected generated pseudo-KJV language. 

What you are arguing here is that if a plausible wordplay could be read into the text it is a tight translation. But that just doesn't follow. I think that at minimum one would have to do what Stanford Carmack does with his 16th century grammatical structures and compare the type of word play to Joseph's known writings and to pseudo-KJV texts. That's the type of null hypothesis one has to eliminate for this to be persuasive.

The problem with your approach is that only explicit NT quotations count towards loose translation. But if there is a loose translation we can't expect that only explicit NT will demonstrate it. It's quite reasonable to assume in a loose translation we'll get paraphrases, mimickry, and quotations/paraphrases from other non-KJV texts. If we don't have a method to differentiate what is loose/tight indepedent of whether it supports our argument, then you're just agreeing it's a vicious circle. We can't just assume it's tight because it's convenient. We have to have a reason. But the reasons you are giving are circular.

Edited August 15, 2018 by clarkgoble
Fixed some typos/misspellings

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The issue isn't a vacillation between tight or loose being vicious. Rather it's the epistemological argument about when this is happening. The way you've presented it anything that requires tight is tight and anything that requires loose is loose in terms of grounding apologetic arguments. This ends up being ad hoc and circular logic. Further typically those making arguments about Hebrewisms don't even engage the issue. The null hypothesis should be that these are artifacts of quotations, paraphrases and/or stylistic borrowing to make a pseudo-KJV text. If one doesn't engage the null hypothesis and at least argue why in this particularity that's unlikely, then it seems that epistemologically one is on sandy ground.

At best (IMO) we're at an early stage of hypothesis formulation where one is finding things that could be Hebrewisms without taking the next (harder) step of analyzing each more carefully. I should note that this is a constant problem in Mormon apologetics. You see it for instance in places like horse bone dating where people tend to point to places where evidence might be without taking the next step of dating the bones themselves in a peer reviewed fashion. If one reads through the myriad of paper, reviews and notes from FARMS, the Interpreter and other publications one quickly sees a lot that's a good reason to do research on that topic but not take as a conclusion. By way of analogy, it's akin to mouse studies in medicine. Finding something that works in a mouse study is a great reason to study the phenomena in question in humans. It's almost never a good reason to assume the mouse results say anything about human biology. (Despite news media often doing just that) In an analogous fashion, far too much of apologetics is finding first steps rather than doing the hard work of seeing if the path is valid.

I'd add that's not just characteristic of apologetics. I think you see it in other areas. So to me, Quinn's Mormonism and the Magic World View, was really interesting for suggesting further research, but rather problematic both in terms of thematics as well as parallels in giving us persuasive theories. Fortunately people have done more work along those lines there. I wish we had as much in apologetics. (Although it's somewhat understandable given the lack of respect apologetics sadly gets - that makes it hard for BYU professors to give it the amount of time they might like. Not to mention how many people have non-academic jobs and do it on the side in an amateur or hobbyist way)

Right, but the question is what other data is in question. We have to be careful that the conclusions of an argument aren't used as evidence for that same argument. That's what a vicious circle is. Now if one has some other criteria for whether a translation is loose or tight in content then that's fine. That's not what's happening though. Indeed the nature of the translation is typically never even brought up.

That doesn't follow at all that I can see. I'm open for the argument for it though. After all in fiction we have stylized differences for voice. It seems to follow that stylistic differences for voice in a loose translation would also manifest stylometric differences. (I'm here assuming that by function words you mean words not essential for meaning which is the usual basis of stylometry)

That definitely doesn't follow unless one first eliminates the null hypothesis of either KJV quotations, paraphrases or expected generated pseudo-KJV language. 

What you are arguing here is that if a plausible wordplay could be read into the text it is a tight translation. But that just doesn't follow. I think that at minimum one would have to do what Stanford Carmack does with his 16th century grammatical structures and compare the type of word play to Joseph's known writings and to pseudo-KJV texts. That's the type of null hypothesis one has to eliminate for this to be persuasive.

The problem with your approach is that only explicit NT quotations count towards loose translation. But if there is a loose translation we can't expect that only explicit NT will demonstrate it. It's quite reasonable to assume in a loose translation we'll get paraphrases, mimickry, and quotations/paraphrases from other non-KJV texts. If we don't have a method to differentiate what is loose/tight indepedent of whether it supports our argument, then you're just agreeing it's a vicious circle. We can't just assume it's tight because it's convenient. We have to have a reason. But the reasons you are giving are circular.

Said much better than I did.

[clarkgoble]

52 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Let's just step back, look at the big picture, and ask a couple of questions - Why would the Creator of the Universe follow such a pattern?  What possible purpose could it serve, or what could necessitate such a method of translation?

That presupposes it was God himself consciously dictating the translation. I rather doubt that was the case. Most assumptions involve Joseph being either consciously or unconsciously involved in the translation or other figures such as Mormon or Moroni. No one knows though and since it seems unanswerable don't spend much time on it.

One could still ask why God would allow such a flawed (from our perspective) translation. Why not make a translation at least as good as the KJV relative to the underlying Septuagint or Masoric text? I think that's a good question and if you wish, I can give some answers. But that seems a quite different issue.

 

 

[clarkgoble]

20 minutes ago, champatsch said:

I wasn't addressing your points about the character of the translation.

The text can be analyzed without regard to whether it was translated. The nature of the translation is a secondary concern.  I was just trying to clarify your level of knowledge of the primary subject matter.  Now it is known.

I think the question relative to stylometry and Hebraisms is the significance of such structures. It's thus unlike the issues you raise where the phenomena either exists in the text or not. Now you do get to authorship questions by making the same analysis of Joseph's writings as well as some pseudo-KJV styles writings. In a certain way the purported Hebraisms need the same sorts of analysis.

I will say that the Hebraisms I find most persuasive are those that aren't tied to pseudo-KJV language but are more obscured in our text and harder to attribute to coincidental structures due to a style of writing.

Now of course one problem with Hebraisms in contrast to the structures you outline is the greater difficulty of searching for them. You can use relatively simple queries in a database to establish your structures. While there are a few Hebrew, Egyptian or Semitic structures that might work with in general we're dealing with puns and the like that can't easily be searched for. So the project is considerably more difficult.

Edited August 15, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not assuming that. I'm saying your adoption of "dynamic translation" is a direct result of the inability to reconcile different aspects of the text. It's an ad hoc way to approach the text, and once you open yourself up to "loose, expansive translation," then the whole thing could be "expansion," or modern in origin.

Your whole scenario is flawed because there is nothing wrong with a dynamic translation in the first place.

Time for an analogy.

Let's say that Jimmy's Middle school English teacher (Mrs. Styles) catches him passing a mean note to Kenny. At first the teacher thinks Jimmy was most likely responsible for the note. Jimmy gets in trouble because the note was a form of bullying. Then, upon inspection, she notices two different hand writing styles that alternate back and forth. After comparing the note to written assignments that had been turned in, the teacher discovers that the other author was most likely Johnny, who sat next to Jimmy in class. Johnny complains, though, because originally only Jimmy got in trouble.

It wasn't until after the teacher more thoroughly analyzed the letter that she realized both of them were involved. How dare she adjust her assumptions based on further evidence. The only reason she did so was, as jkwilliams puts it, because of her "inability to reconcile two different aspects of the text." What "an ad hoc way to approach the text, and once you open yourself up" to the idea that Johnny could also have contributed to it, then the whole thing could be Johnny's.

Analogy over.  

The final conclusion is a flawed, of course, because she found evidence for both styles to begin with. And, obviously, there is no reason to assume two different authors couldn't be responsible for a note, just like there is no reason to assume that a translation couldn't be both tight and loose in regard to its literalness. Both options are perfectly feasible.

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by Ryan Dahle

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Ryan Dahle said:

Your whole scenario is flawed because there is nothing wrong with a dynamic translation in the first place.

Time for an analogy.

Let's say that Jimmy's Middle school English teacher (Mrs. Styles) catches him passing a mean note to Kenny. At first the teacher thinks Jimmy was most likely responsible for the note. Jimmy gets in trouble because the note was a form of bullying. Then, upon inspection, she notices two different hand writing styles that alternate back and forth. After comparing the note to written assignments that had been turned in, the teacher discovers that the other author was most likely Johnny, who sat next to Jimmy in class. Johnny complains, though, because originally only Jimmy got in trouble.

It wasn't until after the teacher more thoroughly analyzed the letter that she realized both of them were involved. How dare she adjust her assumptions based on further evidence. The only reason she did so was, as jkwilliams puts it, because of her "inability to reconcile two different aspects of the text." What "an ad hoc way to approach the text, and once you open yourself up" to the idea that Johnny could also have contributed to it, then the whole thing could be Johnny's.

Analogy over.  

The final conclusion is a flawed, of course, because she found evidence for both styles to begin with. And, obviously, there is no reason not to assume two different authors could be responsible for a note, just like there is no reason not to assume that a translation could be both tight and loose in regard to its literalness. Both options are perfectly feasible. 

 

I'll just defer to Clark's post, which was much better said than mine. It's not that there's anything "wrong" with a dynamic translation. It's the way you arrive at it that is problematic and, as Clark put it, circular.

[Ryan Dahle]

53 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The issue isn't a vacillation between tight or loose being vicious. Rather it's the epistemological argument about when this is happening. The way you've presented it anything that requires tight is tight and anything that requires loose is loose in terms of grounding apologetic arguments. This ends up being ad hoc and circular logic.

I don't see how this is true at all. See analogy above about Jimmy and Johnny. When you have a translation that could be either tight or loose in any given situation, then obviously you will logically favor one over the other based on the evidence relevant to the specific situation. How in the world is that ad hoc or circular logic? 

53 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Does systematic stylometric analysis demonstrate distinct voices based on function words? Yes. Mostly likely tight translation.

That doesn't follow at all that I can see. I'm open for the argument for it though. After all in fiction we have stylized differences for voice. It seems to follow that stylistic differences for voice in a loose translation would also manifest stylometric differences. (I'm here assuming that by function words you mean words not essential for meaning which is the usual basis of stylometry)

If the text was written in ideograms that are mostly devoid of any syntactic structure (i.e. function words) then you have to come up with some other explanation for why the voices in the Book of Mormon are so distinct (other than a tight translation). You can suppose the stylometric evidence is wrong, that Joseph was exceptionally good at creating voices, or that someone else who was especially good at creating diverse voices created the text. But if you accept the stylometric evidence as most likely being valid (which I do) and that God revealed the text to Joseph (which I do), then it is natural to see this testable aspect of the text as a fairly literal (or at least syntactically consistent) translation from a non-ideogrammatic source text. 

53 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Are there numerous examples of viable proposals for Hebrew/Egyptian wordplays? Yes. Mostly likely tight translation.

That definitely doesn't follow unless one first eliminates the null hypothesis of either KJV quotations, paraphrases or expected generated pseudo-KJV language. 

What you are arguing here is that if a plausible wordplay could be read into the text it is a tight translation. But that just doesn't follow. I think that at minimum one would have to do what Stanford Carmack does with his 16th century grammatical structures and compare the type of word play to Joseph's known writings and to pseudo-KJV texts. That's the type of null hypothesis one has to eliminate for this to be persuasive.

I'm not sure what you are talking about for KJV quotations, paraphrases or pseudo-KJV language. I'm just saying that when the text exhibits numerous transliterations that work well as wordplays in Hebrew and Egyptian, then that is good evidence that those specific transliterated terms have a very literal, even phonetic, correspondence to words in the source text. That is as literal as it can get. As I argued before, though, this type of phenomenon needs quite a few instances before it can be seen as more than coincidence. 

Edited August 15, 2018 by Ryan Dahle

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

7 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

 

As someone pointed out elsewhere, the problem is that, if you actually read something written in EModE it doesn't read like the Book of Mormon at all. Stan has shown that certain possible usage variants from EModE show up in the Book of Mormon, but does that add up to an author writing in EModE? I don't know. As I've said several times, I'm not dismissing or disputing Stan's findings at all, mostly just asking questions. There are matches between examples of variant usage in the Book of Mormon and the same variant showing up in EModE texts. My question from the beginning is what the significance is. If we have a variant that shows up in fewer than 10 EModE documents and a similarly small number in the Book of Mormon, is that statistically significant enough to make any conclusions? I don't know. And I am still unsure what I'm meant to conclude from all of this, anyway. 

From reading Stanford's work he does not seem to be arguing specific phrases in some case. A lot of it has to do with syntax. Such as the phrase "It supposeth me" used four times in the Book of Mormn as an example of inverted syntax which was extremely rare even in Early Modern English.

Then there are phrases like "the more part of" which show up exactly. He also takes up words for which meaning has shifted over the decades and centuries, and plurals susch as the "{-th}" and "was". The whole aspect of the Early Modern English is more complex than any one phrase or useage. It is beyone me to explain it all, or even remember all (or even most) of the constructs and examples that Stanford comments on. He has written over a dozen articles on the subject.

hope-for-things come back is that Joseph uttered the words, therefore he must have been able to do it. Stanford says otherwise. I have done a bit of internet "research" and just have not found a case such as this to compare it to. The closest thing I could find is the Parl Curran/Patience Worth and automatic writing thing, although there are significant differences.

One conclusion is that Early Modern English should not be in a nineteenth century text.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Well wouldn't such a affirmation have been evident through peer review? What feedback did they get from the review?

That is a question that you must ask Stanford. He has a story to tell about that, but it is not my story so I will not tell it.

Glenn

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I don't see how this is true at all. See analogy above about Jimmy and Johnny. When you have a translation that could be either tight or loose in any given situation, then obviously you will logically favor one over the other based on the evidence relevant to the specific situation. How in the world is that ad hoc or circular logic? 

That's almost a textbook example of circular logic. The only reason you pick one is because of your conclusions. Circular reasoning is by definition where the conclusion is a premise. Now some circular logic is acceptable, such as in hermeneutics where you have the hermeneutic circle famously. But in this case it seems like a vicious circle since you're only using one piece of evidence (the Hebraism) and it's both a conclusion and premise for the passage in question. If it was part of a series of reasons to prefer one text or if there were some other criteria involved then it wouldn't be vicious.

To make this simpler, it matters whether we're arguing for the translation content being loose or tight. The Hebraism is an argument for one of those but then the tight or loose can't be a premise for whether a Hebraism exists. Now if you're talking, "are there Habraisms" in the text, then that doesn't matter. But if you're arguing for whether this one is a Hebraism then it matters a great deal.

The problem with Hebraisms in the text then is that the issue isn't whether they are present but what their significance is. That then takes you to the problem of the null hypothesis I've mentioned a few times which then depends upon whether the text is tight or not.

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

If the text was written in ideograms that are mostly devoid of any syntactic structure (i.e. function words) then you have to come up with some other explanation for why the voices in the Book of Mormon are so distinct (other than a tight translation).

I'm not convinced they are so distinct, since a lot of the stylometry analysis depends upon where one cuts the texts into parts. However as I said you can find such stylometry differences in fiction where one is writing different characters with a different voice. If the translation is loose yet involves different broad styles (narrative, first person, etc.) then we'd expect the same phenomena. 

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I'm not sure what you are talking about for KJV quotations, paraphrases or pseudo-KJV language. I'm just saying that when the text exhibits numerous transliterations that work well as wordplays in Hebrew and Egyptian, then that is good evidence that those specific transliterated terms have a very literal, even phonetic, correspondence to words in the source text. That is as literal as it can get. As I argued before, though, this type of phenomenon needs quite a few instances before it can be seen as more than coincidence. 

Right, and I'm just saying that's circular. Doesn't mean your conclusions aren't true. Just that the argument you are making is circular. Further you missed the second criticism which was comparison to a null hypothesis.

Again compare the argument you are making to what Stanford usually does in his arguments for structures in the text. As I recall he's fairly careful here.

Edited August 15, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Ryan Dahle]

40 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I don't see how this is true at all. See analogy above about Jimmy and Johnny. When you have a translation that could be either tight or loose in any given situation, then obviously you will logically favor one over the other based on the evidence relevant to the specific situation. How in the world is that ad hoc or circular logic? 

That's almost a textbook example of circular logic. The only reason you pick one is because of your conclusions. Circular reasoning is by definition where the conclusion is a premise. Now some circular logic is acceptable, such as in hermeneutics where you have the hermeneutic circle famously. But in this case it seems like a vicious circle since you're only using one piece of evidence (the Hebraism) and it's both a conclusion and premise for the passage in question. If it was part of a series of reasons to prefer one text or if there were some other criteria involved then it wouldn't be vicious.

Sorry, but you are going to have to explain your reasoning with more specificity. I'm just not seeing what you are saying, even though I'm trying to. I think you are misunderstanding/misrepresenting my logical chain of reasoning. 

How is the example I provided a "textbook example" of circular reasoning? I'm guessing that you recognized that most of the second-half was tongue-in-cheek and meant to demonstrate the absurdness of jkw's logic.

 

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by Ryan Dahle

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Sorry, but you are going to have to explain your reasoning with more specificity. I'm just not seeing what you are saying, even though I'm trying to. I think you are misunderstanding/misrepresenting my logical chain of reasoning. 

How is the example I provided a "textbook example" of circular reasoning. I'm guessing that you recognized that most of the second-half was tongue-in-cheek and meant to demonstrate the absurdness of jkw's logic. 

Your analogy shows clearly you didn’t understand my point. And yes, your reasoning is circular.

[Ryan Dahle]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Your analogy shows clearly you didn’t understand my point. And yes, your reasoning is circular.

Can you please explain its circularity rather than just relabling it as circular. It sounds like you are saying it is circular because it is circular, which is well, rather circular itself, don't you think. 

[JarMan]

On 8/14/2018 at 8:10 AM, Ryan Dahle said:

As for coins, the BofM's system of weights and measures (as well as its noticeable absence of coins) nicely adheres to ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian systems of weights and measures. Is there a system generally known to the EModE speaking world that is as similar to the BofM as these ancient systems were?

John W. Welch, “Weighing and Measuring in the Worlds of the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8, no. 2 (1999): 36–45.

John W. Welch, “The Laws of Eshnunna and Nephite Economics,” in Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon: The FARMS Updates of the 1990s, ed. John W. Welch and Melvin J. Thorne (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), 147–149.

John W. Welch, “The Law of Mosiah,” in Reexploring the Book of Mormon: A Decade of New Research, ed. John W. Welch (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992), 158–161.

 

I've done some research and I can answer this question affirmatively. It turns out that the similarities mentioned in the linked articles are ubiquitous in ancient and medieval weights and measures systems. There are many systems that have a gold/silver-grain equivalent. For example, the word "grain" as used in the English system of measurements comes from the weight of a single grain of barley. Many systems also have equivalents to a laborer's wage. The standardization of grain costs and labor costs (as well as other costs) seems to be the main purpose for setting up weights and measures in the first place. And they almost all seem to have been set up by a king or head of state. The most similar system of measures I was able to identify was the ancient Roman system which has a similar spread of gradations as King Mosiah's plus a unique 1.5 weight measure found in both the Nephite and ancient Roman systems but not found in any of the identified ANE systems or in any of the other systems I examined. My conclusion is that somebody with a knowledge of the ancient Roman system of ancient measures could have easily produced the system found in the Book of Mormon.

[JarMan]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh gosh. Ok.

See it as you want to. That's what we all do anyway.

I suggest you study further. I have no dog in the fight whether it's 19th century or 16th century, Masonic, anti-Masonic, if Joseph stared into a flame or onto a stone or translated the wallpaper.

What I can do is look at the evidence and see it for what it is instead of worrying about whether or not it is God breathed.

Strongly suggest you read about Masonic rituals how Joseph was attempting to restore true masonry in the temple ordinances after they had apostasized. Look up Master Mahan as Master Mason.

Look up the similarities between the temple ordinances on Masonry. Figure out why it is that some argue that Mason's killed Joseph.

I really don't care. To me scripture comes from God as he inspires human beings with all their prejudices and feelings intact.

The purpose of scriptures that teaches about God not about history.

I have absolutely no problem with that but obviously many here do.

You have and these verses a major reference to Masonic ritual mixed with the words "secret combinations" in one verse at the time and place of a huge anti-masonic furor.  

Uh, I see it differently.

I'm familiar with some of the masonic influences on early Mormonism, particularly as related to the temple ceremony. But my understanding is that there aren't any New York period masonic influences (besides the supposed anti-masonic influences in the Book of Mormon).

The supposed parallel with a flaxen cord around the neck (the masonic ceremony calls it a cable tow) is unimpressive to me. Especially in light of the parallels to a biblical story.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

I'm familiar with some of the masonic influences on early Mormonism, particularly as related to the temple ceremony. But my understanding is that there aren't any New York period masonic influences (besides the supposed anti-masonic influences in the Book of Mormon).

The supposed parallel with a flaxen cord around the neck (the masonic ceremony calls it a cable tow) is unimpressive to me. Especially in light of the parallels to a biblical story.

There are no facts only interpretations and yours disagrees with mine. Sometime I will take on that article and show how the logic is totally backwards.

But not now.

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." - Paul Simon.

"The Boxer"

I really like the bowed psaltery part in that song. It's got such an etherial sound.

I mean a bowed psaltery and a tuba?

sheer genius.

 

Edited August 16, 2018 by mfbukowski

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

There are no facts only interpretations and yours disagrees with mine. Sometime I will take on that article and show how the logic is totally backwards.

But not now.

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." - Paul Simon.

"The Boxer"

I really like the bowed psaltery part in that song. It's got such an etherial sound.

I mean a bowed psaltery and a tuba?

sheer genius.

 

I get it. I’m too biased to evaluate this fairly. But since you have “no dog in the fight” you can see things much more clearly.

[mfbukowski]

38 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I get it. I’m too biased to evaluate this fairly. But since you have “no dog in the fight” you can see things much more clearly.

Uh, no.

Reread what I actually said.

I have no dog in the fight because it doesn't matter to me what the answer is. Joseph was a prophet I know that spiritually I don't need any historical .... information to know that

When I said there are no facts only interpretations I was including my own interpretation.

But the logic in that article is definitely screwed up

[JarMan]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Uh, no.

Reread what I actually said.

I have no dog in the fight because it doesn't matter to me what the answer is. Joseph was a prophet I know that spiritually I don't need any historical .... information to know that

When I said there are no facts only interpretations I was including my own interpretation.

But the logic in that article is definitely screwed up

We disagree. I’m fine with that. I was responding to the “What I can do is look at the evidence and see it for what it is” routine. We all have times where we think our own judgment is unclouded (for whatever reason we tell ourselves) while assuming bias in others. Anyway I don’t want to belabor the point…in my experience you’ve always been respectful on this forum. Thanks for the input. Do you have any other examples you believe couldn’t have come prior to 1650?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

We disagree. I’m fine with that. I was responding to the “What I can do is look at the evidence and see it for what it is” routine. We all have times where we think our own judgment is unclouded (for whatever reason we tell ourselves) while assuming bias in others. Anyway I don’t want to belabor the point…in my experience you’ve always been respectful on this forum. Thanks for the input. Do you have any other examples you believe couldn’t have come prior to 1650?

Ok, point taken.

My point was that to me testimony is everything

I do not think objective evidence is decisive in whether or not a given religious belief improves your life since by definition religious beliefs cannot be proven by objective evidence.

Unless of course you can show me a picture of God, and tell me how much he weighs or show me the numbers for how mercy balances out justice, or why eyewitnesses to the crucifixion did not accept the atonement.

So for me objective evidence is irrelevant in these matters.

 

Edited August 16, 2018 by mfbukowski