clarkgoble Posted March 26, 2019 Posted March 26, 2019 (edited) 26 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I assume everything ever done is potentially at least fallible. I'm not sure why that is a factor in this discussion. if you want to make the point that there were intermediaries so that means it is more fallible then it would have been if God was making the words appear, great. That's really all I've been asserting. 26 minutes ago, stemelbow said: So you are saying God told someone to go and tell Joseph what to dictate and that God was not involved with what those words, teachings or ideas were? I am quite perplexed that you don't think this line of reasoning is arguing against the Church's position. I'm saying we don't know how much control God had. Again I'm open to being shown this is against Church teaching but I'll confess it seems to be the Church's teaching from what I can see. The Church has never claimed tight control over the process by God. As the quote from Young suggests, a major common view is that it wasn't tight. Again I don't deny major figures who thought there was tight control. Joseph Fielding Smith being the obvious one. My sense is that despite the outsized influence of JFS particularly on manuals in the 80's and 90's that it's a minority view. 26 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I was using directed to mean that God was making sure it was done the right way, with the right story and inspiration involved. I wasn't trying to use it as if God was just telling someone to go do something, and that person could do it however he/she wished. Not sure that clarifies things since "right way" seems vague. I think he thought it "good enough." If that's all you mean by "right way" then we agree. But that would then seem to undermine a lot of your earlier comments I was originally objecting to. My objection was to your claim that if God was behind it we wouldn't have pseudo-KJV text. I then noted that in context this was socially required but also noted the involvement of other people. It seems you want very tight control over the process so as to argue God wasn't actually involved given the process. The issue is ultimately how much control God purportedly exercises. I just don't see compelling evidence for your position even though undeniably some held to it. 26 minutes ago, stemelbow said: So by the gift and power of God could mean God told someone to do something but God himself was not in anyway involved with the story, teachings, or words used? Again I wouldn't say "not in any way." However I think God could allow his intermediary great flexibility. 26 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I suppose what I mean is I'm fine with your position. I just don't think there's much room for it in the Church and I don't know that its useful in arguing to defend the Church (particularly since it, as I see it, argues against the Church). Could you explain why? From what I can tell the Church emphasizes "by the gift and power of God" (as do I) but leave vague and undefined what that means. The Gospel Topics Essay on the Translation of the Book of Mormon seems to leave open in large degree the process. We know the spectacles were used by Joseph but we don't know how they worked or what's going on behind the scenes other than God's power is involved in some way. Your original claim was, "The LDS position is that the process entails God dictating." I reject that. Edited March 26, 2019 by clarkgoble
stemelbow Posted March 26, 2019 Posted March 26, 2019 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: That's really all I've been asserting. I'm saying we don't know how much control God had. Again I'm open to being shown this is against Church teaching but I'll confess it seems to be the Church's teaching from what I can see. The Church has never claimed tight control over the process by God. As the quote from Young suggests, a major common view is that it wasn't tight. Again I don't deny major figures who thought there was tight control. Joseph Fielding Smith being the obvious one. My sense is that despite the outsized influence of JFS particularly on manuals in the 80's and 90's that it's a minority view. Not sure that clarifies things since "right way" seems vague. I think he thought it "good enough." If that's all you mean by "right way" then we agree. But that would then seem to undermine a lot of your earlier comments I was originally objecting to. My objection was to your claim that if God was behind it we wouldn't have pseudo-KJV text. I then noted that in context this was socially required but also noted the involvement of other people. It seems you want very tight control over the process so as to argue God wasn't actually involved given the process. The issue is ultimately how much control God purportedly exercises. I just don't see compelling evidence for your position even though undeniably some held to it. Again I wouldn't say "not in any way." However I think God could allow his intermediary great flexibility. Could you explain why? From what I can tell the Church emphasizes "by the gift and power of God" (as do I) but leave vague and undefined what that means. The Gospel Topics Essay on the Translation of the Book of Mormon seems to leave open in large degree the process. We know the spectacles were used by Joseph but we don't know how they worked or what's going on behind the scenes other than God's power is involved in some way. Your original claim was, "The LDS position is that the process entails God dictating." I reject that. Thanks for the explanations. I'm beginning I think to hear you a little clearer. I think I'm still left to conclude that the findings of Carmack bring in a complexity that only makes the book look more kooky (stupid word I know but I used it already so I'm stuck using it again). I dont' think his arguments help to defend the Church, particularly since God, on the Church's view, is said to be involved in the book coming forth. I hear you suggest that God could have commanded someone to do it and then that means the words and ideas put to Joseph weren't really God, but that seems to argue against the Church (I realize you don't think it argues against the Church, but that's all I see). Since the Church's position is clearly the Book is divinely inspired, represents God's word, and is said to be the most correct of all books (even if doctrinally), I don't think it tenable to argue for the church AND then suggest an intermediary was one who was not speaking for God, but one that was following God's commands. As per the question of tight control vs loose. On the one hand the book, to me, seems much better explained from a loose control perspective. But if so, then how did EModE get in there? Carmack's position seems to me to be if loose then EModE would be impossible. If tight, then it works. It likely means an intermediary though--(meaning the question of how God was involved comes in bringing into question the Church's much stated position of it being by the gift and power of God) . I don't know how you'd maintain loose control, and EModE, and an intermediary. Loose control suggests the chosen wording came from Joseph. Tight would mean it came from God or an intermediary. One thing I'm giving you though, is this: If God exists, if we can say in some sense that God works on and inspires us, then works put together by humans can carry some and varying degrees of inspiration. If so, whatever inspires is of God. The BoM does inspire some and doesn't inspire others, just like so many other books in the world. And Books is just one media.
Exiled Posted March 26, 2019 Posted March 26, 2019 13 hours ago, Storm Rider said: Not now, not ever. I see it as a desperate attempt to vilify Joseph Smith. It is the kind of thing an anti-Mormon, (no, I don't use that term lightly), brings up around the campfire when also talking about Area 51 and the man with the hook that comes out to kill people at night. It is a farce. That use of language was common and certainly not impressive except to the itching ears of people of our era of overwhelming ignorance. He used a seer stone and no one could see his plates except a very few family members and close confidants. The possibility these were magician's tricks cannot be ruled out especially given the utter lack of good evidence of Nephites in the new world. So, I don't see it as out of the realm of possibilities that if EmodE is really a thing and not merely a product of the natural way Joseph Smith spoke, that it might have been a deliberate attempt to impress followers by sounding old worldly when supposedly receiving inspiration from above. Mr. Carmack says the archaic forms used in the book of mormon, d&c and the plot of Zion are evidence of divinity and right control of the language. That is one way to look at it. Another way is how I view it, that of one trying to impress.
clarkgoble Posted March 26, 2019 Posted March 26, 2019 (edited) 33 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I think I'm still left to conclude that the findings of Carmack bring in a complexity that only makes the book look more kooky (stupid word I know but I used it already so I'm stuck using it again). I dont' think his arguments help to defend the Church, particularly since God, on the Church's view, is said to be involved in the book coming forth. While Carmack's work was published by The Interpreter I don't think it primarily functions as apologetic argument. Rather it's just an interesting structure in the text. It may well require that Joseph isn't the (sole) author. However as I've noted that can easily be dealt with by the fraud model and indeed was a frequent aspect of most fraud models historically. As I've argued I've just disagreed with the idea that these structures are somehow problematic to God being involved. 33 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I hear you suggest that God could have commanded someone to do it and then that means the words and ideas put to Joseph weren't really God, but that seems to argue against the Church (I realize you don't think it argues against the Church, but that's all I see). This seems an odd criticism since surely a significant part of the words given to Joseph come from the authors of the Book of Mormon. (Nephi, Lehi, Jacob, Mormon, Mormoni, etc.) What you seem to want to do is have God unmediated but I just don't see why. You kept asserting that was the Church's position but haven't really produced any evidence to that direction. I'm certainly open to evidence towards that position but you need to provide it. 33 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I don't know how you'd maintain loose control, and EModE, and an intermediary. Loose control suggests the chosen wording came from Joseph. Tight would mean it came from God or an intermediary. Loose control would mean that Joseph either consciously or unconsciously could modify the ur-text given to him. That ur-text might be loose impressions in his mind. (Assuming here by loose control you mean of the process and not the text - I'm not committed I should note to loose control of the process just the text) Again all completely speculative but perhaps the process is something like Moroni integrating his mind to Josephs by some divine process enabling ideas to transfer. (Not arguing that's the case - just a hypothetical sci-fi example) In that case it'd be loose due to Moroni not following the text exactly and the ideas being vague enough in the communication that Joseph's mind doesn't follow the ideas exactly but gets phrases in his memory that are close enough. Fundamentally the issue is how the communication occurs to Joseph Smith and whose minds and language are involved with it. We simply have no information in that regards. You've wanted it to just be God's mind dictating words to Joseph but I think that unlikely. Certainly it's not required under LDS theology. I'm arguing more for a process akin to how most people describe receiving revelation. That would lead to a degree of uncertainty. I'd also allow for an interrogative approach to the text allowing expansions as Joseph (either consciously or unconsciously) raises queries about what was just given. Such expansions could easily come in 19th century language rather than the grammar of early modern. Indeed I'd say an interesting test would be to look at passages frequently raised as expansions (say the opening to Alma 11) and see if they are more or less likely to be early modern. 17 minutes ago, Exiled said: Mr. Carmack says the archaic forms used in the book of mormon, d&c and the plot of Zion are evidence of divinity and right control of the language. That is one way to look at it. Another way is how I view it, that of one trying to impress. Where does he say it's evidence of divinity? I think the problem with "trying to impress" is that adopting of pseudo-KJV whether by oral preachers or pseudo-KJV texts don't have these linguistic elements. That is the argument is that looking at those mimicking the language don't produce what the Book of Mormon contains in terms of grammatical structures. Edited March 26, 2019 by clarkgoble 1
Storm Rider Posted March 26, 2019 Posted March 26, 2019 3 hours ago, Exiled said: He used a seer stone and no one could see his plates except a very few family members and close confidants. The possibility these were magician's tricks cannot be ruled out especially given the utter lack of good evidence of Nephites in the new world. So, I don't see it as out of the realm of possibilities that if EmodE is really a thing and not merely a product of the natural way Joseph Smith spoke, that it might have been a deliberate attempt to impress followers by sounding old worldly when supposedly receiving inspiration from above. Mr. Carmack says the archaic forms used in the book of mormon, d&c and the plot of Zion are evidence of divinity and right control of the language. That is one way to look at it. Another way is how I view it, that of one trying to impress. Oh, please. Those closest to him, the same ones that he had conflicts with and left the fold, NEVER, NOT ONE OF THEM, denied the truthfulness and reality of the Book of Mormon. This simple fact completely destroys your position. Who would stand by a fraud after you have rejected the man so strongly as to leave his fold? No one - simple answer. You are cherry picking which "facts" you want to focus on while ignoring everything that conflicts with you position.
stemelbow Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 18 hours ago, clarkgoble said: While Carmack's work was published by The Interpreter I don't think it primarily functions as apologetic argument. Rather it's just an interesting structure in the text. It may well require that Joseph isn't the (sole) author. However as I've noted that can easily be dealt with by the fraud model and indeed was a frequent aspect of most fraud models historically. As I've argued I've just disagreed with the idea that these structures are somehow problematic to God being involved. I know. I got ya, and your position. And as I've argued, I think it complicates the defenses for the Book and the story of how it came forth. These findings only show there are far more concerns and questions to consider than previously known. 18 hours ago, clarkgoble said: This seems an odd criticism since surely a significant part of the words given to Joseph come from the authors of the Book of Mormon. (Nephi, Lehi, Jacob, Mormon, Mormoni, etc.) What you seem to want to do is have God unmediated but I just don't see why. You kept asserting that was the Church's position but haven't really produced any evidence to that direction. I'm certainly open to evidence towards that position but you need to provide it. I'm not sure what more you need with respect to this. I'm not the one saying that God had a intermediary. Joseph is the one who said it came to him by the gift and power of God. If an intermediary working between God and Joseph, it could still mean God helped to make the words appear to Joseph, I suppose, but then God is the one doing it. Then if God is doing it, then what is the intermediary for? If an intermediary working between the two, and God is not doing it, then what exactly is the gift and power of God? Did the intermediary have power to put words into the hat, or into Joseph's mind? If so, that really brings into focus the question whether its really God inspiring us through our hearts and minds. Is it really God or an intermediary? Is the HG really just an intermediary or is he God? We can, I suppose, assume it must be God because it makes us feel good and it works as we apply. But then again, isn't it true that Joseph's intermediary who was not God, also brought forth the good fruit? You see it is in the Church taught that its God who does all the work on the individual. This new theory you put forth suggests it's not necessarily God at all. It could be someone else God tells to go and do and that someone else is not told by God what to do or how to do it. it really throws out the notion that "whether by my own voice or the voice of my servants it is the same." 18 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Loose control would mean that Joseph either consciously or unconsciously could modify the ur-text given to him. That ur-text might be loose impressions in his mind. (Assuming here by loose control you mean of the process and not the text - I'm not committed I should note to loose control of the process just the text) Again all completely speculative but perhaps the process is something like Moroni integrating his mind to Josephs by some divine process enabling ideas to transfer. (Not arguing that's the case - just a hypothetical sci-fi example) In that case it'd be loose due to Moroni not following the text exactly and the ideas being vague enough in the communication that Joseph's mind doesn't follow the ideas exactly but gets phrases in his memory that are close enough. I'd agree that what would make most sense is this loose control. But if so, then EModE wouldn't be found in the text, that is, at least according to Carmack--Joseph couldn't have come up with these language bits. I don't think there's any reasonable consistent way to explain it is as loose control, with an intermediary, with EModE present, all together. And I do beleive that is precisely why Skousen and Carmack seem to favor tight control. 18 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Fundamentally the issue is how the communication occurs to Joseph Smith and whose minds and language are involved with it. We simply have no information in that regards. You've wanted it to just be God's mind dictating words to Joseph but I think that unlikely. Certainly it's not required under LDS theology. I'm arguing more for a process akin to how most people describe receiving revelation. That would lead to a degree of uncertainty. I'd also allow for an interrogative approach to the text allowing expansions as Joseph (either consciously or unconsciously) raises queries about what was just given. Such expansions could easily come in 19th century language rather than the grammar of early modern. Indeed I'd say an interesting test would be to look at passages frequently raised as expansions (say the opening to Alma 11) and see if they are more or less likely to be early modern. I'm not saying God was involved at all, as yet. I'm saying the Church teaches that God is involved. You have added a notion that an intermediary was involved and that intermediary was not necessarily converying the words God desired. That is this other was told by God to go and do, in your view, as I understand it, yet that doing was all that other's work and not God's. If so, then the gift and power of God claim is untrue.
Exiled Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 (edited) 15 hours ago, Storm Rider said: Oh, please. Those closest to him, the same ones that he had conflicts with and left the fold, NEVER, NOT ONE OF THEM, denied the truthfulness and reality of the Book of Mormon. This simple fact completely destroys your position. Who would stand by a fraud after you have rejected the man so strongly as to leave his fold? No one - simple answer. You are cherry picking which "facts" you want to focus on while ignoring everything that conflicts with you position. Let me know when something objective is found to prove Nephites were in the Americas and I will take a look at it. To this point nothing has been found to convince the sceptic. Please go to patheos and the anxious bench blog, then look up Nahom and you'll find the debate between professor Jenkins and Professor Hamblin on the subject. All Professor Jenkins wanted was some small scrap of good evidence showing Nephites in the Americas and Prof. Hamblin couldn't supply it. Faith leads one to hope for future discoveries, but at present, there isn't any good evidence of Nephites in the Americas. So, EmodE being a product of Joseph Smith's backwoods spoken language or perhaps a method he used to impress his followers has to still be considered as the probable explanation for the archaic language. Whether or not someone continues to believe despite the evidence doesn't matter. It doesn't prove anything. People get tricked all the time into fraudulent schemes by suppposedly well meaning individuals. MLM's come to mind. Edited March 27, 2019 by Exiled
Exiled Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Exiled said: Duplicate Edited March 27, 2019 by Exiled
clarkgoble Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 (edited) 52 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I'm not saying God was involved at all, as yet. I'm saying the Church teaches that God is involved. You have added a notion that an intermediary was involved and that intermediary was not necessarily converying the words God desired. That is this other was told by God to go and do, in your view, as I understand it, yet that doing was all that other's work and not God's. If so, then the gift and power of God claim is untrue. I don't think that's my position. If God has an intermediary and God wants an intermediary how is that not what God desires? You keep wanting, I think, God's desires to only be the best of all possible worlds. If God's desire is a "good enough" situation how is that a problem? Second, if something is a joint work, how is that not "gift and power of God?" I just don't see how you are coming to those conclusions. 52 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I'd agree that what would make most sense is this loose control. But if so, then EModE wouldn't be found in the text, that is, at least according to Carmack--Joseph couldn't have come up with these language bits. I don't think there's any reasonable consistent way to explain it is as loose control, with an intermediary, with EModE present, all together. And I do beleive that is precisely why Skousen and Carmack seem to favor tight control. Again I don't see how you are coming to this conclusion. I outlined a fanciful way that could happen. 13 minutes ago, Exiled said: Let me know when something objective is found to prove Nephites were in the Americas and I will take a look at it. To this point nothing has been found to convince the sceptic. And there never will be up to the point it doesn't matter anymore. That's because the book is intentionally designed so you can only know it's truth by turning to God. You can't know it is true in a passive way where it's irrational to believe otherwise. Edited March 27, 2019 by clarkgoble
Exiled Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 19 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Where does he say it's evidence of divinity? https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/on-doctrine-and-covenants-language-and-the-1833-plot-of-zion/ He says that the archaic structures are not JS's words and evidence of the revelatory process. I assume that means he thinks it came from God. 1
Exiled Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: And there never will be up to the point it doesn't matter anymore. That's because the book is intentionally designed so you can only know it's truth by turning to God. You can't know it is true in a passive way where it's irrational to believe otherwise. Of course. The church should move away from the objective, historical view and instead rely on unfalsifiable subjective religious experience.
clarkgoble Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Exiled said: https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/on-doctrine-and-covenants-language-and-the-1833-plot-of-zion/ He says that the archaic structures are not JS's words and evidence of the revelatory process. I assume that means he thinks it came from God. Thanks. I'd missed that. I disagree with him on that point. I don't think it follows that unconscious loose control would lead to more scribal errors. I assume he's going on the basis of how many receive revelation, such as when giving a priesthood blessing, where one is often grasping for words. That doesn't appear to have happened. Of course I do think that if one accepts Joseph wasn't plagiarizing then Joseph speaking with very different styles and grammar is evidence of a revelatory process. But it presupposes a lack of fraud. So there's a certain circularity to the claim (IMO). As I see it the structures are orthogonal to the questions apologists and critics usually fight over. 35 minutes ago, Exiled said: Of course. The church should move away from the objective, historical view and instead rely on unfalsifiable subjective religious experience. I don't think it's unfalsifiable. I'd also quibble with that word "objective" but then I've probably beat that horse to death in other threads. Edited March 27, 2019 by clarkgoble
Kevin Christensen Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 1 hour ago, Exiled said: Let me know when something objective is found to prove Nephites were in the Americas and I will take a look at it. To this point nothing has been found to convince the sceptic. Please go to patheos and the anxious bench blog, then look up Nahom and you'll find the debate between professor Jenkins and Professor Hamblin on the subject. All Professor Jenkins wanted was some small scrap of good evidence showing Nephites in the Americas and Prof. Hamblin couldn't supply it. Faith leads one to hope for future discoveries, but at present, there isn't any good evidence of Nephites in the Americas. So, EmodE being a product of Joseph Smith's backwoods spoken language or perhaps a method he used to impress his followers has to still be considered as the probable explanation for the archaic language. Whether or not someone continues to believe despite the evidence doesn't matter. It doesn't prove anything. People get tricked all the time into fraudulent schemes by suppposedly well meaning individuals. MLM's come to mind. Objective? Quote Paradigms differ in more than substance, for they are directed not only to nature but also back upon the science that produced them. They are the source of the methods, problem-field, and standards of solution accepted by any mature scientific community at any given time. Famous N. R. Hanson quote: Quote "All data are theory-laden." Jenkins got all of his mileage from insisting that Hamlin use his (Jenkin's) theories, assumptions, judges, problem field, and standards of solution. And never even acknowledged or comprehended that that is just what makes all the difference in whether evidence shows up. Hamblin wrote a very good essay on that exact topic in JBMS. Still relevant though much has been learned since then. https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1382&index=11 Whereas Exiled can say, "nothing exists" and insist on some proof that will coerce his unwilling submission, paradigm change doesn't work that way. Quote Particularly persuasive arguments can be developed if the new paradigm permits the prediction of phenomena that had been entirely unsuspected while the old one prevailed. A good example of this was Brant Gardner (to cite one example): Quote Would I ever reconstruct Mesoamerican society in a way that appeared to represent Christianized Old World peoples? No. I wouldn’t. I don’t. The rather interesting discovery made just a few years back was that I, and many other Mesoamericanists, had simply made some incorrect assumptions about the [Book of Mormon] text. The attempts of LDS archaeological apologetics was for years focused on finding the Christian or the Hebrew—or who knows what—in Mesoamerican archaeology. The difference came when I started looking for Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon instead of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica. Oddly enough, there is a huge difference, and the nature and the quality of the correlations has changed with that single shift in perspective.104 One might read the Bible and assume that Hebrew culture was reasonably important or powerful at times and that the monotheistic religion kept all others at bay. Of course archaeology tells us otherwise. So does the text, when we know how to correlate the remarks about groves and high places to the surrounding religions. When one realizes that we get so much of the religion of Yahweh in the Old Testament because it is combating other religions, we can understand that the text took place in a context. Knowing the context helps explicate the text. The same is holding true for the Book of Mormon. It is the context that is interesting. Would I ever suggest that this means I think the Nephites were influential in the great flow of Mesoamerican religion? Heavens no—no more so than the Hebrews [were in the Old World]. Perhaps even less.105 [Christensen] What evidence do you expect to find (or to be found) regarding the Book of Mormon civilization? [Gardner] A very fair question. I’ll answer by telling you where I started on my current examination and the conclusions I have made. I began with an examination of my assumptions and what can and cannot be done with ethnohistorical data. I base my current work on previous work with Mesoamerican history, trying to sort out the development of religious ideas in later Mesoamerica (quite apart from anything that has to do with Mormons). Here are my assumptions: The Book of Mormon, if it is an ancient text, should behave like one. The writers of the Book of Mormon should have an agenda that is their own, not one modeled after a modern concern. The text should demonstrate typical concerns for ancient societies—kin groups, out-group prejudice, etc. The text should reflect the major cultural trends and pressures of the time and place in which it took place. Even if it doesn’t directly participate in the mainstream of history, it should not be ignorant of it. The text should be internally consistent. The text should describe some aspects of culture that are unexpected in the modern world but are compatible with its own time. As for the idea that a forgery can and should be falsifiable, I would expect a forger to be accurate according to knowledge available at the time the forgery was created. I would expect, however, that not only would better information call into question the important elements of the story, but that the forgery would completely fall apart upon investigation of the smaller nooks and crannies where a nonspecialist would not even know to pay attention. Really good forgeries tend to be caught in these small details, even when the large details conform to expectations. When I started my examination, I had no expectation of what I would find. Some of the correlation I have found came not from attempting to find some specific thing, but in realizing that the text did not say what I had thought it said—and that it really didn’t make any sense until I saw it in the context of Mesoamerican culture. When people ask me about the most important correlation I have found, I have a hard time narrowing it to just one. The most important correlation isn’t a singular finding; rather, it can be seen in the many facets of the discovery that the entire text of the Book of Mormon works better in a Mesoamerican context. Speeches suddenly have a context that makes them relevant instead of just preachy.106 The pressures leading to wars are understandable. The wars themselves have an explanation for their peculiar features.107 All of these things happen within a single interpretive framework that puts them in the right place at the right time.108 His six volume Second Witness commentaries gather his evidence, which is not nothing. Of course anyone can say "So what?" to that something. but that doesn't make it nothing. Just something that they ignore, and therefore, do not explain to my satisfaction. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 3
stemelbow Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: I don't think that's my position. If God has an intermediary and God wants an intermediary how is that not what God desires? You keep wanting, I think, God's desires to only be the best of all possible worlds. If God's desire is a "good enough" situation how is that a problem? Second, if something is a joint work, how is that not "gift and power of God?" If the intermediary gave the words that were God's desire then it was of God? I'm not sure that's a very good explanation for by the gift and power of God. Did God cede some power to the intermediary so he/she could get the words into Joseph's mind/conception/sight? Also, I didn't hear you say it was a joint work. Joint as in, God did have part in it? or joint as in God told this unnamed intermediary to go do it? 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: I just don't see how you are coming to those conclusions. Again I don't see how you are coming to this conclusion. I outlined a fanciful way that could happen. And there never will be up to the point it doesn't matter anymore. That's because the book is intentionally designed so you can only know it's truth by turning to God. You can't know it is true in a passive way where it's irrational to believe otherwise. All books are filled with some things that are good useful and true and some things that are not. I'm not sure calling a book true or thinking it true, really helps. What's true? the wording chosen by this intermediary is good enough for God? Or that the story told really happened? That the teachings found are true? each and every teaching is true? and by what interpretation or decision about what is meant? If in the end, all you are saying, which it feels like it is, that you have to take it all on faith then I've agreed with that. Someone has to presume it is good or useful in order to accept it. Great. Agreed.
Glenn101 Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Exiled said: 17 hours ago, Storm Rider said: Let me know when something objective is found to prove Nephites were in the Americas and I will take a look at it. To this point nothing has been found to convince the sceptic. Please go to patheos and the anxious bench blog, then look up Nahom and you'll find the debate between professor Jenkins and Professor Hamblin on the subject. All Professor Jenkins wanted was some small scrap of good evidence showing Nephites in the Americas and Prof. Hamblin couldn't supply it. This is subscribing to the not found, doesn't exist fallacy. You have to remember that it was not until 1993 that evidence for the existence of King David was discovered at Tel Dan in northern Israel. There has been intense archeological interest and activity in the area for many decades, yet look how long it took to actually find archeological evidence for the actual existence of David. Of course, this does not prove the Bible to be the word of God, but is evidence that parts of the Bible story are historical. The Nahom story is just a bit of evidence that the person that authored 1 Nephi was familiar with the Nahom area and lends credence to the historical claims of that part of the narrative. Maps showing a region called Nehem is on maps that possibly could have been seen by Joseph Smith, although no evidence has surfaced to indicate that such was the case. Certainly none of his critics of the day caught onto that and accosted him with the map. What was not known at the time is that the Nahom/Nehem area is home to a vast burial ground, which fits in so nicely with Nephi's narrative that Ishmael was buried there. Jenkins makes a lot of assumptions in his debate with Bill Hamblin which he does not back up with data. There have been several threads discussing Nahom on thos board. But the bolded part, evidence for the existence of Nephites in the Americas is not the subject of which we are speaking. You are engaging in a classic red herring type of fallacy in that you are throwing in things to distract and move away from the actual topic at hand. Goes hand in hand with a type of avoiding the issue fallacy. What is being discussed is the conundrum, the riddles, the puzzles that are presented in the Book of Mormon. The EmodE question is just one of many. Edited to add, I am responding to the post by Exiled, not to Storm Rider. His empty post somehow was included when I quoted Exiled. Glenn Edited March 27, 2019 by Glenn101 clarification 2
clarkgoble Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 26 minutes ago, stemelbow said: If the intermediary gave the words that were God's desire then it was of God? I'm not sure that's a very good explanation for by the gift and power of God. Did God cede some power to the intermediary so he/she could get the words into Joseph's mind/conception/sight? Also, I didn't hear you say it was a joint work. Joint as in, God did have part in it? or joint as in God told this unnamed intermediary to go do it? Not to get philosophical although I know I'm prone to do that, but it it seeming like our disagreement ends up hinging upon the question of whether desires can be vague or must be determinate. To return to the common Brother of Jared example, God's desire was to light the ship but left the determination of that to the BoJ. In the case of the Book of Mormon God's desire can be for vague notions on the plates but leave open the details of the language. It's those vague desires that I think open up the ability to do joint action. Indeed I think vague desires are a necessary prerequisite for cooperation. (Otherwise it's not really a joint endeavor but just the endeavor of the one with detailed desires) If Joseph and one other were involved that would mean God's desires would have to be vague and the work would be joint. So God would be involved, both in providing the proximate means but also in terms of directing people to do it. He may even through the Holy Ghost ensure that his vague desires are met. i.e. if the translation gets out of whack he brings it back to where it should be. 33 minutes ago, stemelbow said: All books are filled with some things that are good useful and true and some things that are not. I'm not sure calling a book true or thinking it true, really helps. What's true? the wording chosen by this intermediary is good enough for God? Or that the story told really happened? That the teachings found are true? each and every teaching is true? and by what interpretation or decision about what is meant? If in the end, all you are saying, which it feels like it is, that you have to take it all on faith then I've agreed with that. Someone has to presume it is good or useful in order to accept it. Great. Agreed. By true I'm using it in its everyday colloquial use. That is still accepting fallibilism but accepting that things are mostly accurate. So that would include "it really happened" but also the assertions are mostly accurate. "Take it all on faith" needs upacked a bit of course. In one sense it's accurate since we're trusting that the revelations God gives us are correct. But that's faith the way someone reading a science textbook but hasn't conducted the experiments themselves is taking the book on faith. In both cases you're trusting the accuracy of the person communicating to you. Now you can go beyond that and test some elements - particularly general claims such as ethical claims. (Say Alma 32's approach) But some things you intrinsically can't test in straightforward ways. So without direct evidence I can't know there were Nephites for instance. However God could communicate elements to me that give me more confidence in them to the point of knowledge. Again to draw a parallel I can't know much directly about mesoAmerica having never been there, not seen the artifacts, not having conducted the dating, etc. So there's always an element of faith in others representations of things necessary for most types of knowledge both in day to day types of common knowing as well as scientific ways of knowing. Science is intrinsically a social endeavor and social endeavors mean no one person tests everything but trusts others. Sometimes that trust proves to be mistaken as we've seen in the replication problems in science especially psychology and medicine.
champatsch Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: Thanks. I'd missed that. I disagree with him on that point. I don't think it follows that unconscious loose control would lead to more scribal errors. I assume he's going on the basis of how many receive revelation, such as when giving a priesthood blessing, where one is often grasping for words. That doesn't appear to have happened. I think I'd call it scribal changes, not scribal errors. Skousen and I agree on this point. If Joseph worded the Book of Mormon from revealed ideas, then it's likely there would be more scribal changes than there would be if he didn't word the text. There's hardly any evidence of scribal changes like that. Skousen sees scribal skips, anticipatory errors, that kind of thing. 1
clarkgoble Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, champatsch said: I think I'd call it scribal changes, not scribal errors. Skousen and I agree on this point. If Joseph worded the Book of Mormon from revealed ideas, then it's likely there would be more scribal changes than there would be if he didn't word the text. There's hardly any evidence of scribal changes like that. Skousen sees scribal skips, anticipatory errors, that kind of thing. I think this misses the distinction between conscious or unconscious actions. That's rather important for many forms of loose translation. What I think you're getting at is that if Joseph were given vague ideas and had to find the words for it that he'd make a certain class of changes. That might well be true but really depends upon conscious deliberation. If the deliberation isn't conscious then that type of error simply wouldn't appear - especially if the unconscious processes are already complete at the point the dictation takes place. So there's a temporal issue in these types of changes from what we me expect in word choice from normative use. I mentioned this elsewhere, but this also gets at the issue of vagueness. What I think you mean by "revealed ideas" is really more the issue of vagueness in revelation that needs filled in by the speaker. That's how I frequently experience revelation in giving a blessing for instance. There's a creative element and often I feel like I grasping for things. I assume to make the judgement regarding types of scribal errors that you're comparing it to someone composing a work as they give it. i.e. making up a story as they go. However I'd think that needs to be compared analytically even to make that judgment. (Perhaps Royal Skousen has done that - I wouldn't be surprised) If you know of explicit studies making that comparison between ad hoc compositions and readings I'd be interested in a reference. It still wouldn't touch the issue of unconscious effects - especially those where creativity in Joseph's mind isn't involved. To give a hypothetical sci-fi like example purely to demonstrate the principle, consider a mind reading device that discerns English sentence fragments and is able to correlate it to "meaning" in some sense which is correlated to similar "meaning" structures in Moroni's mind in order to conduct the translation. In that case it's unconscious in the sense there's no conscious deliberation by Joseph or Moroni in terms of the word choice. However it's also loose in the sense that it's using these sentence fragments tied to a similarity computation of "meaning." Again don't take that example too seriously. It's just there to demonstrate the underlying principle of unconscious meaning producing a translation without conscious deliberation. That's more or less how the old Google Translate worked before they got more complicated neural networks on the problem. There were sentence fragments which mathematically have meaning in terms of certain relationships. To translate from one language to an other those relations then are accessed. There's no deliberation involved just access to memory with the fragments and then relationships from fragment use to have a "meaning." (Meaning in quotes to indicate vagueness since I don't mean some idealized meaning-language) Edited March 27, 2019 by clarkgoble
champatsch Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 Clark, you do understand that the revealed-ideas view of Book of Mormon translation has to make many exclusions, so many, in fact, that the exclusions mount into something that leaves little room for revealed ideas.
champatsch Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 First, you start with the names; they cannot come across as ideas. 1
champatsch Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 Then you go to the biblical passages. There are too many differences to make biblical copying work, and the right chapter divisions aren't there. There are too few differences to make biblical paraphrasing work.
champatsch Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 Then there's words Joseph couldn't pronounce. If he's wording it, then he knows how to pronounce the words he's choosing.
champatsch Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 There's chiastic word level correspondences to think about.
champatsch Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 There's the non-English and usage, connecting complex subordinate clauses with main clauses.
Recommended Posts