Jump to content

Emode as Proof Js Did Not Write Bom


Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

But the BOM is untidy, messy, and there are loose ends everywhere. Why? Because it is not fiction"

Also proof that it was an abridgement that was taken from many other records. If we had all the records it might not seem so messy with loose ends.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bdouglas said:

“So someone from 200 years ago, in the English speaking world, wrote the BOM, and somehow this manuscript landed in the hands of Joseph Smith, who then connected it to a made up tale about an angel, gold plates, etc."

Sounds about right to me.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, bdouglas said:

“Fiction is not messy, it is tidy, organized. But the BOM is untidy, messy, and there are loose ends everywhere. Why? Because it is not fiction

In an effort to see how best to organize a novel I will probably never finish, I've been studying several published works in my chosen genre, and the idea of "no loose ends" has really come to the fore. Then again, there's the final season of Game of Thrones... which appears to have written by chemistry majors.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, cinepro said:

I can't explain the phenomenon that people describe as "UFOs", but that doesn't mean I'm logically compelled to believe they exist, or accept someone else's theory about what they are and where they came from. Unless they can provide evidence that supports their specific theory, of course.

The BOM will never be "logically" proven and no one will ever be "compelled" to believe it——not in this life, at least. God gives us enough to support belief, but not more. "My grace is sufficient for the meek," the scripture says.

Richard's blithe assertion that "Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon" is insupportable——this is what I was trying to show him.

That and the fact that there are no naturalistic BOM origin theories that make any sense. They require huge leaps of faith to accept——greater leaps of faith, in fact, than is required to believe the simple explanation JS gave.

It is more honest for one to say "I don't know where the BOM came from" than it is to say "Joseph Smith wrote it."

The point of my opening post is that the "Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon" theory is dead. If it wasn't dead before, it is dead now with EModE findings.

Edited by bdouglas
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Uh, that's what I said. It is most honest to say that we don't know where the BoM came from. Unfortunately, that doesn't help the believers' case.

I would also be wary of being overconfident in the "EModE findings" and what they mean. I don't know how long you've been in the apologetics game, but things like that have a way of circling back and biting you in the behind.

What does EModE stand for?

Link to comment
3 hours ago, cinepro said:

I can't explain the phenomenon that people describe as "UFOs", but that doesn't mean I'm logically compelled to believe they exist, or accept someone else's theory about what they are and where they came from.

I went to a David Copperfield show that ended with a UFO being transported into the theater. I have no idea how he did that or any number of other things. I’ve searched online for explanations, and no one can provide the exact method of how he did the things he did. None the less I stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the straight forward “true” answer that it was magic. 

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I went to a David Copperfield show that ended with a UFO being transported into the theater. I have no idea how he did that or any number of other things. I’ve searched online for explanations, and no one can provide the exact method of how he did the things he did. None the less I stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the straight forward “true” answer that it was magic. 

Copperfield spends a lot of money on stage magic equipment, and the business of sleight of hand and the like is a very old and honored profession.  The audiences all know that it is fake, but they love it anyhow.

Was that what Jesus and his companions did?  Was it just old fashioned legerdemain?  Or was it real  magic?

When Moses and Aaron threw down their staffs and they turned into snakes which swallowed the snakes of Pharaoh's magicians, was that just a fairy tale, or did it really happen?  When Moses raised up a bronze snake to heal the Israelites, was that true healing, or is that just another nonsense story?

Can we trust the performance of mentalists like Dan White, Darren Brown, David Blaine, Lior Suchard, and Oz Pearlman?

Daniel Engber, “Daryl Bem Proved ESP Is Real,” Slate, June 7, 2017, online at  https://getpocket.com/explore/item/daryl-bem-proved-esp-is-real?utm_source=pocket-newtab , yet the conclusion of that article is that one cannot be sure at all. 

Link to comment

There are hundreds of instances where Joseph Smith plagiarized portions of the Joseph Smith “Translation” of the Bible directly from Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary.

Couldn't he have done the same for the Book of Mormon by borrowing from a Bible: Early Modern English Bible translations are those translations of the Bible which were made between about 1500 and 1800, the period of Early Modern English

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Early Modern English. Shakespeare for example wrote in EModE. 

Is it our understanding that Shakespeare was on the committee that put together the KJV Bible?  This language was the high quality King's English that was not normally spoken by the public at large.  The publication of the KJV raised the level of everyday dialogue and caused greater unity in the English nation.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

There are hundreds of instances where Joseph Smith plagiarized portions of the Joseph Smith “Translation” of the Bible directly from Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary.

Couldn't he have done the same for the Book of Mormon by borrowing from a Bible: Early Modern English Bible translations are those translations of the Bible which were made between about 1500 and 1800, the period of Early Modern English

The occurrence of Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon is not constrained to KJV-adjacent passages but undergirds the whole text. Joseph could have specifically analyzed the KJV and any other Early Modern texts which he could have been exposed to in order to alter his word choice, but I'll be honest, I think that's stretching it. These changes we're talking about are for the most part minutiae. The thesis that Joseph cribbed Early Modern English on purpose is also weakened by the fact that it was a dictation, which necessitates word choice on the fly. Even theories of dictation like Davis's, if I recall correctly, require Joseph to do extemporaneous dictation  on bullet points, since Joseph did not have eidetic memory. The case for specific premeditated EModE word choice is thus weakened. 

Furthermore, several prominent systemic features of EModE in the Book of Mormon belong to a class of linguistic tendencies which are subconscious - the writer typically does not choose them. Intentional EModE borrowing has a mighty hard time accounting for that. 

Also, FWIW, plagiarized is an inaccurate term since the JST was never finished and thus never published with the explanatory preface that accompanied every other one of Joseph Smith's scriptural productions. To say he plagiarized Clarke would be like taking uncredited prewriting notes for a master's thesis and calling them examples of plagiarism. 

Edit: Perhaps @champatsch could come lay down some law on this topic. 

Edited by OGHoosier
Added tag
Link to comment

The Book of Mormon, both in the text itself and in the manner of its coming forth, violates the KISS Principle repeatedly (including the pervasive presence of Early Modern English ... you're welcome, Tacenda! ;) ... therein).  While that fact, standing alone, proves nothing, certainly, it is curious.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

There are hundreds of instances where Joseph Smith plagiarized portions of the Joseph Smith “Translation” of the Bible directly from Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary.

Joseph and Sidney Rigdon were trying to make the KJV easier to understand, same as Alexander Campbell, Thomas Jefferson and others were doing in revising the KJV.  Using Adam Clarke was a very sensible thing to do, and I constantly use such learned volumes myself in helping clarify Scriptural texts.

Quote

Couldn't he have done the same for the Book of Mormon by borrowing from a Bible: Early Modern English Bible translations are those translations of the Bible which were made between about 1500 and 1800, the period of Early Modern English

No.  As it turns out the BofM uses types of EModE syntax which are not used in the KJV.  And even when it does use KJV syntax, it uses it at a very different rate than the KJV.  Carmack has published a long list of articles detailing how that works.  There are books from around 1540 which are closest to the BofM in style and syntax, but not Bibles.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment

The Book of Mormon isn't a delimited early modern text from a few identifiable authors or from one particular dialect. It's a filtered, mostly and selectively early modern text, leaving pseudobiblical writings far behind in matching early modern archaism.

Four important pervasive syntactic features are the personal relative pronoun pattern (mostly late 16c / very early 17c in character), heavy finite clausal complementation with early modern modal usage (most like 16c and earlier usage), non(pseudo)biblical subjunctive shall usage (syntactic subjunctive, not morphological) (most similar to 16c usage), and the early modern periphrastic past (mostly 16c in character, when the usage peaked). The latter, however, needs internal syntactic support (of which there is plenty), since Chronicles of Eri (1822) has similar usage, though its periphrastic past lags the Book of Mormon's in quality.

Link to comment
17 hours ago, bdouglas said:

“So someone from 200 years ago, in the English speaking world, wrote the BOM, and somehow this manuscript landed in the hands of Joseph Smith, who then connected it to a made up tale about an angel, gold plates, etc."

 

That would be for you to explain not him.  Or are you saying God speaks in EModE?  DId God translate, Joseph translate, or some other random person do the actual translation?  The problem you are pushing Richard on is your problem.  If JOseph didn't do the translation as he claimed, then who did?  If God why would he use archaic language?  If you don't have an answer, then why do you think Richard should?  

Link to comment
9 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

The occurrence of Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon is not constrained to KJV-adjacent passages but undergirds the whole text. Joseph could have specifically analyzed the KJV and any other Early Modern texts which he could have been exposed to in order to alter his word choice, but I'll be honest, I think that's stretching it. These changes we're talking about are for the most part minutiae. The thesis that Joseph cribbed Early Modern English on purpose is also weakened by the fact that it was a dictation, which necessitates word choice on the fly. Even theories of dictation like Davis's, if I recall correctly, require Joseph to do extemporaneous dictation  on bullet points, since Joseph did not have eidetic memory. The case for specific premeditated EModE word choice is thus weakened. 

Furthermore, several prominent systemic features of EModE in the Book of Mormon belong to a class of linguistic tendencies which are subconscious - the writer typically does not choose them. Intentional EModE borrowing has a mighty hard time accounting for that. 

Also, FWIW, plagiarized is an inaccurate term since the JST was never finished and thus never published with the explanatory preface that accompanied every other one of Joseph Smith's scriptural productions. To say he plagiarized Clarke would be like taking uncredited prewriting notes for a master's thesis and calling them examples of plagiarism. 

Edit: Perhaps @champatsch could come lay down some law on this topic. 

Perhaps you're right, I "plagiarized" by c/p'd partially from an intro to a podcast about JS doing this. I don't have a decent ability for the written word some days. 

But why didn't JS admit to using Clarke's work, and making it look like it was his doing? No one knew, until it was discovered right? It would have been nice if JS admitted using the help.

Link to comment

There are two major theories regarding the BoM's authorship. Either it came about through the gift and power of God, or it is a fictional story created in the 19th century. One of those is a singular event while the other is extremely commonplace.

Under these two main theories are countless subtheories intended to explain the details of the parent main theory. To my mind none of them on either side is so compelling it demands to be accepted as fact. I personally favor Smith and Cowdery having worked openly on it together with full knowledge of the Whitmers it was a project. The production work was mundane. Peep stones and top hats were props brought out when entertaining guests to sell the show. The theory has the advantage of explaining why the production rate of the BoM we have far exceeded the rate required to produce the 116 pages prior to Cowdery, and the dynamic between Joseph, David, John, and Oliver that we can see evolve through the expansion and divisions within the church up to the end of the Missouri period. Given the evidence from The Late War, it's not a major event to find people in 1829 attempting to mimic the KJV. Did their attempt end up being archaic? Seems much more probable to me than a ghost committee. But do I assume that is absolutely what happened? No. The evidence is too weak around any of these subtheories to feel that degree of probability is justified.

 

Now, as to the BoM being fiction written in the 19th century? That's vastly more likely than it being a miraculously obtained and recorded history of a lost people that happens to align with theological debate and thought about the Native Americans from the period it was published.

 

Richard doesn't need to be a "reader" to recognize when the direction of disinterested sciences and other fields are no where near supporting the BoM and moving further away all the time. 

Link to comment
19 hours ago, bdouglas said:

But it was all to no effect. Richard has never been a reader, and most of what I said––well, it just didn’t register with him.

19 hours ago, bdouglas said:

Long pause. I’d finally hit on something that Richard could grasp.

This whole dialogue with "Richard" is so contrived, I assume it's fiction. Or at least fictionalized. But the condescension part rings true.

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Fair Dinkum
      Biblical scholars have long known that the ending to the Book of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) is not found in the most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses and therefore conclude that this long ending is a late addition to the book and not part of the original manuscript.
      This doesn't necessarily pose any problems for the Bible but can the same be said for the Book of Mormon?
       
      Take Mark 16:17-18 a late addition to the Book of Mark, words that were never uttered by Jesus but added centuries after by perhaps a well meaning scribe.
      And yet we find Book of Mormon Jesus proclaiming these of same words through Mormon, words that had been added to the Book of Mark by a scribe. Words that were never uttered by Jesus in Jerusalem but were so important to Jesus that He decided to quote some random scribe and tell Mormon to pass them along to everyone reading the Book of Mormon.
      See Mormon 9:24
      But why would Jesus quote some random scribe and deem their words so important that He needed to tell Mormon to include them in the Book of Mormon?
    • By Fair Dinkum
      In 3 Nephi 22:9 we read of Jesus speaking to the surviving populations in the America's upon His appearance in America.  While most of his comments are merely a duplication of his ministry in the Holy Land one bizarre remark stands out in that it confirms the reality of the Universal Flood Myth.
      Why does Jesus mislead His Nephite audience by propagating the flood myth? 
    • By Metis_LDS
      I am not a conspiracy kind of person.  I had a thought the other day that if you really believe the Book of Mormon you cannot state the following:                    All conspiracy theories are false.
    • By Fair Dinkum
      Believers often pose the question, if not from God then how?  How could an uneducated farm boy produce this book on his own without God's hand?  This new book provides an answer to that question.
      Quoted liberally from his Amazon reviews: In a fascinating new book Dr. William L. Davis draws on performance studies, religious studies, literary culture and the history of early American education, Davis analyzes Smith's process of oral composition. Davis provides a plausible alternative explanation for the coming forth of the Book of Mormon from the official narrative.  He explains how Smith was able to produce a history spanning a period of a 1,000 years, filled with hundreds of distinct characters and episodes, all cohesively tied together in an overarching narrative.
      Eyewitnesses claimed that Smith never looked at notes, manuscripts or books, that he simply spoke words of this American religious epic into existence by looking at a Seer Stone.  Davis shows how this long held assumption is not true, that Smith had abundant time between looking at his seer stone to produce his story line and to think through his plot and narrative.
      If you approach this book without a preconceived axe to grind, you will find solid research explaining how the oral sermon culture of the 19th century either crept into the Book of Mormon as Joseph Smith translated it (from a believer's perspective) or explains how Joseph could have constructed the narrative himself (from a skeptic's). Davis does not take sides and leaves room for both believing and skeptical perspectives.
      Judging the truth of the books claims is not Davis's interest. Rather, he reveals a kaleidoscope of practices and styles that converged around Smith's creation with an emphasis on the evangelical preaching styles popularized by renowned preachers George Whitefield and John Wesley. He allows for the believer to maintain a faithful view of the book.
      In Visions in a Seer Stone, Davis adroitly restores for the modern reader aspects of the now-forgotten sermon culture of Joseph Smith’s 19th-century, burnt over district, world and the well-established rhetorical performance techniques of its preachers. Davis then demonstrates that this oratorical praxis—in which Joseph Smith himself was a participant—illuminates not only Smith’s production of the Book of Mormon as a dictated performance bearing the indicia of these sermon preparation and delivery techniques, but it also illuminates the very text of this LDS scripture itself, both its narrative events and sermon contents.

      Davis details how numerous Book of Mormon narrative features—headings, outlines or summaries, some visible in italics and many others less visible in the text—are not mere textual devices for the reader, but were effective 19th-century sermon performance tools Smith could use to keep track of and produce the narrative as he dictated it. Davis produces an exhaustive list of ministers who wrote about sermon delivery techniques using such headings or outlines—“laying down heads”— with all of them substantially in agreement, having borrowed from each other and from bible dictionaries, such as Adam Clarke's bible commentaries and other sermon manuals, as well as from “Heathen Moralists” such as Plato, Aristotle and other philosophers, rhetoricians and writers from antiquity (see in particular on pp. 42 and 71 as to Bishop John Wilkins and the sources he used as well as his primary techniques to assist the preacher to speak from memory and which enable the congregation to understand “with greater ease and profit, when they are before-hand acquainted with the general heads of matters that are discoursed of”.) Smith incorporated these same rhetorical techniques into his Book of Mormon

      Davis shows that The Book of Mormon narrative contains many examples of its characters also using these oratorical techniques, the most visible formulation of which is found in Jacob 1:4 in which Nephi gives Jacob very explicit instructions on preaching that (other than his references to “plates”) could easily have been inserted into the pages of a 19th-century sermon composition manual: “if there were preaching which was sacred, or revelation which was great, or prophesying, that I [Jacob] should engraven the heads of them upon these plates, and touch upon them as much as it were possible” (see p. 91). The term Heads while not a familiar to the modern reader would have been quickly recognized by an early 19th century reader as familiar terminology used by the religious orator as topical notes highlighting important points to touch upon in the sermon.

      Although not an active Latter-day Saint himself, Davis writes generously for those still in the fold, providing room for Latter-day Saints to retain their faith in this book of LDS scripture while incorporating Davis’s new findings into a still orthodox understanding of inspired translation as described in LDS scripture, in Doctrine & Covenants 9:7-10. However, as shown by Avid Reader’s Amazon review of this book, apparently not all apologists will be satisfied with this option.

      One reviewer complained that— headings, outlines and summaries have been used for centuries by historians and other ancient writers, including Josephus and Aristotle, and that they would have been available somehow to the Book of Mormon’s ancient authors—is interesting since it actually supports Davis’s thesis. Take the preachers who wrote about the oratorical techniques described by Davis. They themselves, in formulating and promoting these 19th-century techniques, had access to and were informed by these very authors noted a reviewer. (see the note about Bishop Wilkins above, not to mention the pseudo-archaic book genre in 19th-century America that borrowed them as well)! Yet these ancient authors noted by siad reader (both living in Greco-Roman times) are not ancient enough to have informed the Book of Mormon’s purported ancient authors who themselves left Israel before the Babylonian exile, a time when outlines, headings and summaries are not known among ancient scribes and authors (and even LDS apologists now recognize that ancient scribal colophons are not the same thing—see Davis, p. 126).

       
      Davis has identified tell-tale signs within the Book of Mormon that give hints of Smith processes.  He also offers historical reference to Smith's becoming a trained Methodist orator.
      This sounds like a very interesting book and I'm wondering if anyone here has read it and would share your thoughts.
      <-------- Not King Benjamin

    • By Robert F. Smith
      A symposium on "EGYPT AND THE OLD TESTAMENT" will be held at the Staatliches Museum Ägyptischer Kunst, Gabelsbergerstr. 35, Munich/München, Germany, on 6-7 Dec 2019.
      The proceedings will be published as ÄAT (AEGYPTEN UND ALTES TESTAMENT) volume 100.
      More on the symposium can be found at https://www.freunde-abrahams.de/aegypten-und-altes-testament/  .
      ÄAT's spectrum covers the philological, art historical, and archaeological branches of Egyptology, as well as Old Testament exegesis, the archaeology, glyptics and epigraphy of Israel/Palestine and neighboring regions such as Sinai and Transjordan, literature and history of religions, from the Bronze Ages up to Greco-Roman and early Christian periods, as well as relevant aspects of research history.
       
×
×
  • Create New...