Popular Post rongo Posted February 1, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted February 1, 2021 I think the best explanation of the available evidence for the translation method of the Book of Mormon is from B.H. Roberts in 1903-1906. I think it still remains superior, even to recent general authority „smart phone“ explanations (Joseph Smith read the Urim and Thummim or the seer stone like someone today reads a smart phone) or the Early Modern English theory of the last few years. Because of its length, here is a synopsis of it (originally printed in „Defense of the Faith and the Saints“). The Roberts theory was a major part of the young men’s manuals for 1903-1906, and received a lot of spirited pushback from members because it went against their views on how translation happened. Roberts also responded to responses and criticisms of his „manual theory“ (the theory put forth in the manual that he wrote). I don’t think many people today (including general authorities) are aware of Roberts’s arguments. Here it is for discussion purposes: --- 1. Misconceptions about how the U&T (used by Roberts and in this synopsis to mean both the U&T and the seer stone, interchangeably) was used in translation cause problems. Primarily when people assume that the text was read off of them. 2. The only statement from Joseph Smith himself about the translation process is: „Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim, I translated the record by the gift and power of God.“ The only statement from Oliver Cowdery was „I wrote with my own pen the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages), as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph Smith, as he translated by the gift and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or, as it is called by that book, ‚Holy Interpreters.‘“ 3. David Whitmer said, „In the darkness, the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that would appear the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear.“ 4. Whitmer also said (in an interview with a Kansas City newspaper): „He did not see the plates in translation, but would hold the interpreters to his eyes and cover his face with a hat, excluding all light, and before his eyes would appear what seemed to be parchment on which would appear the characters of the plates in a line at the top, and immediately below would appear the translation in English, which Smith would read to his scribe, who wrote it down exactly as it fell from his lips. The scribe would then read the sentence written, and if any mistakes had been made, the characters would remain visible to Smith until corrected, when they would fade from sight to be replaced by another line.“ 5. Martin Harris said, „By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the prophet and written by me, and when finished he would say ‚written,‘ and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it appeared on the plates, precisely in the language then used.“ 6. To test the criticisms of skeptics who were pestering him, claiming that Joseph Smith simply rattled off memorized lines, Harris switched out Joseph’s seer stone with a stone he found by the river that looked like it. „Martin! What is the matter? All is as dark as Egypt!“ Joseph exclaimed, and couldn’t translate. Harris’s countenance betrayed him, and Joseph asked him why he had switched it. „To stop the mouth of fools,“ Harris said. 7. Summary up to this point: David Whitmer and Martin Harris described the process as an automatic, mechanical one in which Joseph simply read off sentences from the U&T. Unlike Oliver Cowdery, who was the only other person with translation experience (from his abortive attempt at translation; Royal Skousen speculates that a certain section of Alma in the original manuscript is that very part, and illustrates small, fleeting success before Joseph Smith had to step in and finish the thought --- the only part in the manuscript where Joseph Smith’s handwriting appears), Whitmer and Harris erroneously projected their assumptions of what Joseph Smith saw in the U&T. Their descriptions of Smith’s actions that they could observe are in keeping with what others saw (Joseph dictated, the scribe read it back, and it was either corrected or stood as written, and dictation continued). 8. The problem with the „words appeared, and Joseph read them“ theory is that the original manuscript and first edition contain evidence that the Book of Mormon text contained grammar and usage errors, regional colloquialisms, and ideosyncracies of Joseph Smith’s speech. 9. David Whitmer reported an instance where Joseph had had an argument with Emma, and couldn’t translate at all. After praying in the orchard for an hour and apologizing to Emma, he was able to translate again. „He could do nothing save he was humble and faithful.“ 10. When this is coupled with the description of the spiritual requirements of translation in D&C 8 and 9, it is clear that translation was not an automatic, mechanical process such as reading sentences off a stone. He had to be spiritually in tune, study it out in his mind, seek confirmation from God, and interpret the answer. 11. The apparent process of translating the Book of Abraham (Kirtland Egyptian Papers, Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, etc.), supports this.* 12. „There can be no doubt either but what the interpretation thus obtained was expressed in such language as the prophet could command, in such phraseology as he was master of and common to the time and locality where he lived; modified, of course, by the application of that phraseology to facts and ideas in the Nephite scriptures --- ideas new to him in many respects, and above the ordinary level of the prophet’s thinking; and also the phraseology was superior to that he ordinarily used, because of the inspiration of God that was upon him.“ 13. Roberts quotes „The Annotated Bible“ and the Dean of Westminster and King Edward VII of England to show that this view (that prophets were not remote-controlled, entranced automatons in producing scripture) is also used by sectarians in defending the Bible. i.e., it is not unique to the Book of Mormon situation. 14. New Testament evidence that inspired utterances were written in „barbaric Greek;“ i.e., that grammatical and syntactical perfection are not a characteristic of scripture. Scripture is given in the idiom of the audience. 15. „There can be no reasonable doubt that had Joseph Smith and his associates been finished English scholars and the facts and ideas represented by the Nephite characters on the plates been given him by inspiration of God through the Urim and Thummim, those ideas would have been expressed in flawless English.“ 16. A letter to President Joseph F. Smith was forwarded to Roberts for a response. The writer wanted an explanation for large sections of verbatim King James Bible passages in the Book of Mormon. Roberts: 1st --- It is a fact that there are lengthy passages from Isaiah and other sections of the Bible that closely rely on the KJV, when they are not outright verbatim. 2nd --- „It is a fact that no two persons will take the same manuscript and make translations from one language into another, and the language of the two translations be alike.“ Roberts mentions the brass plates as providing the Old Testament material (including the extra-canonical material from Zenock, Zeons, Neum, etc.), and that Jesus Himself provided other sections, such as Malachi. Mormon and Moroni also teach things, such as Paul’s teachings on charity, that closely mirror the New Testament. [Here I depart from Roberts in specifics, while agreeing in general. He states that where the ideas expressed are so close to the KJV that it makes sense, Joseph used the KJV. I find witnesses of the translation in agreement that books and manuscripts were never used or present, so the KJV material had to have been provided in a „supernatural way:“ either visually, such as the „display screen in the U&T“ theory, or the „superhuman feats of memory“ theory (which is what I think. Lucy Smith reports that Joseph was the least inclined of her children to read. Reverend Lane preaching a sermon on James 1:5 spurred him to look it up and pray in the woods, leading to the First Vision. This changed him, in my view, as did Moroni’s visit, where Moroni quoted several scriptures and applied them to the present and future. I think from that point, he devoured the Bible, and when the time came to translate the Book of Mormon, the Spirit was able to „bring all things to his remembrance“ in a dramatic way]. 17. Letters from members: #1 Your theory in the young men’s manuals contradicts Whitmer and Harris. Shouldn’t we side with the three witnesses? Roberts: The Harris statements are not at first-hand at all; they come through Edward Stevenson. Neither Harris nor Whitmer had any personal experience translating; they could only speak of what they observed, and they applied their own assumptions to those observations. Reiteration of the previous arguments about assuming that Joseph read off the stones being contrary to D&C 8 and 9 and making translation a passive, automatic process that makes God responsible for errors and ideosyncracies of spelling, grammar, and colloquialisms. Impossibility of translation being a one-to-one bringing over from one language to another (the translator has to make it make sense in the target language, which in Joseph Smith’s case, was upstate New York of the 1820s). The evidence points strongly away from a read text in favor of a text dictated after being pondered and expressed. „And, by the way, in passing, I want to ask those who stand up so stoutly for the vindication of what Messrs. Whitmer and Harris have chanced to say on the subject of translation—What about the Lord's description of the same thing in the Doctrine and Covenants? Are they not interested in vindicating that description?” Whitmer and Harris’s recollections also were not recorded and given until they were very advanced in age; they were not given contemporaneous or even near the translation period. A certain amount of memory phenomena are to be expected. 18. Regarding „literal translation,“ Roberts includes a photograph of a page from a literal Greek New Testament, with the Greek text, a literal „bringing over“ in English, and a translation in standard English. This shows, as he puts it, that „to speak of literal translation is to speak of literal nonsense.“ Roberts also quotes from the same source Paul’s address to Agrippa and 1 Peter 4 to show that the translator has to make it make sense in the target language, or he will simply confuse the audience and open himself and the work up to ridicule. The evidence points in the direction of a D&C 8 and 9 process, rather than Joseph reading a verbatim text. If there were a verbatim text, then the work of actually translating the Nephite record would already have been done; he merely read it off. 19. Another letter: „We don't think the writer of the Manual should answer this. Give us better authority." (i.e., give us a First Presidency response, not a response from the author of the manual (Elder Roberts). Roberts: Sorry, guys. The First Presidency referred your letter to me to respond to. You’re stuck with me. „I think it proper at this point, also, to say, by way of personal explanation, and perhaps to some extent by way of defense against unkind criticisms that have been made of the writer of the Manual, because of the theory of translation therein advanced—I think it proper to say, I repeat, that the present writer did not upon his own responsibility, and without consultation with those somewhat the guardians of these matters, set forth the theory of the Manual on the translation of the Book of Mormon. Chapter VII of the Manual, the one setting forth the Manual theory of translation, was submitted to the First Presidency, and several of the Apostles met together to consider the chapter, and to listen to the reasons which, in the writer's opinion, demanded that such an explanation of the translation should be given. After listening to Chapter VII, and hearing the reasons for making such explanations therein contained, it was moved and carried that such chapter be published in the Manual, and it was published accordingly. This statement is not made with a view of making the First Presidency and the Twelve, who were present and voted upon the subject, responsible for the ideas advanced; the motion then taken carried with it no such consequences. It meant only that the brethren then consulted were willing that the present writer should publish those views in the Young Men's Manual; but primarily he, the writer, stands responsible for the views there expressed—a responsibility, by the way, which he is very willing to carry; but he is anxious to have the Latter-day Saints understand, and especially the young men in Israel, that in setting forth the Manual theory of translating the Book of Mormon, the writer was not seeking to gratify his personal vanity by advancing some novel theory, and pushing it to the front regardless of the opinions of others, or the general interests of the work.” “The theory of the Manual is having a bad effect upon our best Book of Mormon students." “With all due respect to the gentleman's opinion, I desire to say to him that he is entirely mistaken. The "Manual theory" of translation is having no such effect; but, on the contrary, Book of Mormon students everywhere are rejoicing in the fact that the "Manual theory" of translation gives them a rational defense against the criticisms that are urged against [the Book of Mormon]." 7 Link to comment
rongo Posted February 1, 2021 Author Share Posted February 1, 2021 Two devil’s advocate responses on my part 1) Martin Harris’s anecdote about switching the seer stone (which thwarted translation) seems to indicate that there was some special property about the stone itself. This undermines Roberts’s theory. I personally don't believe that the stone(s) had any special properties; I think they were a faith and focus aid (like "Dumbo's feather"). Most of the Book of Mormon was translated without the seer stone or U&T at all. 2) If I were an EmodE advocate, I would argue that the work of translation was simply done by the „ghost committee.“ This theory still would require Joseph Smith to be reading the text off of the stone, which has its own problems. 1 Link to comment
rongo Posted February 1, 2021 Author Share Posted February 1, 2021 There is also Joseph Smith's statement when he first looked through the Urim and Thummim (large diamonds set in frames, attached to the breastplate): "These are amazing. I can see everything!" So, I don't think they were **just** faith aids. I think Joseph Smith's experience as a see-er (he was sought out by Josiah Stowell because of his reputation), and the cultural milieu of his area contributed to him having confidence that it would even be possible (imagine a 2020 person being asked to translate with a stone or stones today). 1 Link to comment
Ahab Posted February 1, 2021 Share Posted February 1, 2021 32 minutes ago, rongo said: Two devil’s advocate responses on my part My response to the devil's advocate on those 2 points: 32 minutes ago, rongo said: 1) Martin Harris’s anecdote about switching the seer stone (which thwarted translation) seems to indicate that there was some special property about the stone itself. This undermines Roberts’s theory. I personally don't believe that the stone(s) had any special properties; I think they were a faith and focus aid (like "Dumbo's feather"). Most of the Book of Mormon was translated without the seer stone or U&T at all. Not necessarily. It could have been that the Lord knew what Martin had done and was not interested in playing that game so he didn't reveal anything to Joseph through those other stones which thus led to an end\ to that game. 32 minutes ago, rongo said: 2) If I were an EmodE advocate, I would argue that the work of translation was simply done by the „ghost committee.“ This theory still would require Joseph Smith to be reading the text off of the stone, which has its own problems. I think the problem is in thinking the translation process happened in only one way rather than several ways over the course of that time. Sometimes with seer stones, sometimes with the UT spectacles. sometimes with a hat, sometimes with none of that and simply revelation from our Lord to Joseph's mind/spirit, etc. 1 Link to comment
rongo Posted February 1, 2021 Author Share Posted February 1, 2021 I'll also say that do have some cognitive dissonance dismissing David Whitmer's statements along the lines of Joseph reading off of parchment that appeared in the U&T. a) he may have been told this by Joseph Smith, instead of simply assuming it as Elder Roberts and I assume b) if we rely on him as Exhibit A in the witnesses department (as we do, because he was the longest living, most interviewed, and most adamant about the plates and the angel), then it's hard to pick and choose when he's perfect for our claim, and when he's dead wrong. I'm aware of these things, even while I discount his contribution to discussion about the translation process. Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 (edited) On 2/1/2021 at 4:00 PM, rongo said: I'll also say that do have some cognitive dissonance dismissing David Whitmer's statements along the lines of Joseph reading off of parchment that appeared in the U&T. a) he may have been told this by Joseph Smith, instead of simply assuming it as Elder Roberts and I assume Yes. It is very tricky to assume that Joseph only said what appears in print. Joseph must have described what he was doing to several people present, because they do agree on the details: Emma, Elizabeth Ann Whitmer, Michael Morse, Martin Harris, and Joseph Knight Sr. Quote b) if we rely on him as Exhibit A in the witnesses department (as we do, because he was the longest living, most interviewed, and most adamant about the plates and the angel), then it's hard to pick and choose when he's perfect for our claim, and when he's dead wrong. I'm aware of these things, even while I discount his contribution to discussion about the translation process. David Whitmer said a great deal. Yet he was not a primary witness. Most of his information was second hand, but he did make an effort to gather it, and that is helpful. Edited February 3, 2021 by Robert F. Smith 1 Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 7 hours ago, rongo said: There is also Joseph Smith's statement when he first looked through the Urim and Thummim (large diamonds set in frames, attached to the breastplate): "These are amazing. I can see everything!" So, I don't think they were **just** faith aids. I think Joseph Smith's experience as a see-er (he was sought out by Josiah Stowell because of his reputation), and the cultural milieu of his area contributed to him having confidence that it would even be possible (imagine a 2020 person being asked to translate with a stone or stones today). Yet, someone today might be likely to think of the seer-stone as a crystalline virtual-state transducer with a light-emitting diode (LED) display, i.e., a semi-conductor which emits visible electromagnetic radiation in response to stimulating voltage. Solid state electronics would be magic to someone in the early 19th century, but nothing at all amazing to 21st century children. God's ability to bring in high technology would remain as effective eons ago as it is today. It is only we who have changed in our technical abilities and capacities. 2 Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 (edited) 8 hours ago, rongo said: I think the best explanation of the available evidence for the translation method of the Book of Mormon is from B.H. Roberts in 1903-1906. I think it still remains superior, even to recent general authority „smart phone“ explanations (Joseph Smith read the Urim and Thummim or the seer stone like someone today reads a smart phone) or the Early Modern English theory of the last few years. Because of its length, here is a synopsis of it (originally printed in „Defense of the Faith and the Saints“). The Roberts theory was a major part of the young men’s manuals for 1903-1906, and received a lot of spirited pushback from members because it went against their views on how translation happened. Roberts also responded to responses and criticisms of his „manual theory“ (the theory put forth in the manual that he wrote). I don’t think many people today (including general authorities) are aware of Roberts’s arguments. Here it is for discussion purposes: --- 1. Misconceptions about how the U&T (used by Roberts and in this synopsis to mean both the U&T and the seer stone, interchangeably) was used in translation cause problems. Primarily when people assume that the text was read off of them. And yet, Martin Harris, Emma, Elizabeth Ann Whitmer, Michael Morse (Emma's bro-in-law), and Joseph Knight Sr all agree that this is just what took place. I doubt that this was a mere assumption. Joseph must have told them something like that to get such agreement later. Quote 2. The only statement from Joseph Smith himself about the translation process is: „Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim, I translated the record by the gift and power of God.“ In his 1843 letter to James Arlington Bennett, Joseph did expand on that a bit: "By the power of God, I translated the Book of Mormon from hieroglyphics." (B. H. Roberts, ed., History of the Church, VI:74). Quote The only statement from Oliver Cowdery was „I wrote with my own pen the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages), as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph Smith, as he translated by the gift and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or, as it is called by that book, ‚Holy Interpreters.‘“.......................... When I first heard about the "Manual Theory" years ago, I thought it had to do with a hands-on approach, but had no clue about Roberts' intention. I hadn't read it, so ignored it. The first problem I have with it is that it inserts an incorrect biblical term "Urim and Thummim" not mentioned in the BofM. There were only two items: Nephite Interpreters and the seerstone. Of course the Liahona also had writing appear on it, but Joseph did not have it, so it doesn't need to be considered. Edited February 2, 2021 by Robert F. Smith Link to comment
Nevo Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 7 hours ago, rongo said: 1) Martin Harris’s anecdote about switching the seer stone (which thwarted translation) seems to indicate that there was some special property about the stone itself. This undermines Roberts’s theory. I personally don't believe that the stone(s) had any special properties; I think they were a faith and focus aid (like "Dumbo's feather"). Most of the Book of Mormon was translated without the seer stone or U&T at all. This is a great story, but I doubt it's true. At least not as recorded. As Dan Vogel has noted, "it is doubtful that Harris could have found a stone by the river that was identical in shape, size, color, texture, and the distinctive diagonal stripe as Smith's own stone; and, too, Harris would have had to rely on his memory of Smith's stone, not having it with him at the river for comparison. Smith had carried the stone with him on his person for six years and had spent countless hours staring at it" (Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, 124). Also, the account comes from a second-hand source in 1881—53 years after the events it purports to describe. I suspect this is a story that grew with the telling. Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 8 hours ago, rongo said: ................................... 3. David Whitmer said, „In the darkness, the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that would appear the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear.“ 4. Whitmer also said (in an interview with a Kansas City newspaper): „He did not see the plates in translation, but would hold the interpreters to his eyes and cover his face with a hat, excluding all light, and before his eyes would appear what seemed to be parchment on which would appear the characters of the plates in a line at the top, and immediately below would appear the translation in English, which Smith would read to his scribe, who wrote it down exactly as it fell from his lips. The scribe would then read the sentence written, and if any mistakes had been made, the characters would remain visible to Smith until corrected, when they would fade from sight to be replaced by another line.“ 5. Martin Harris said, „By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the prophet and written by me, and when finished he would say ‚written,‘ and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it appeared on the plates, precisely in the language then used.“ What David Whitmer and Martin Harris say is pretty much in synch with what Emma, Elizabeth Ann Whitmer, Michael Morse, and Joseph Knight Sr have said, and that is unlikely to be accidental. 8 hours ago, rongo said: ..................................... 7. Summary up to this point: David Whitmer and Martin Harris described the process as an automatic, mechanical one in which Joseph simply read off sentences from the U&T. Unlike Oliver Cowdery, who was the only other person with translation experience (from his abortive attempt at translation; Royal Skousen speculates that a certain section of Alma in the original manuscript is that very part, and illustrates small, fleeting success before Joseph Smith had to step in and finish the thought --- the only part in the manuscript where Joseph Smith’s handwriting appears), Whitmer and Harris erroneously projected their assumptions of what Joseph Smith saw in the U&T. Their descriptions of Smith’s actions that they could observe are in keeping with what others saw (Joseph dictated, the scribe read it back, and it was either corrected or stood as written, and dictation continued). 8. The problem with the „words appeared, and Joseph read them“ theory is that the original manuscript and first edition contain evidence that the Book of Mormon text contained grammar and usage errors, regional colloquialisms, and ideosyncracies of Joseph Smith’s speech............................... As late as the 1990s, I thought along the same lines. Seemed to make sense. Odd, archaic spellings I attributed to the misspellings of country bumpkins acting as Joseph's scribes, with Joseph as country bumpkin number one. The "bad grammar" I attributed solely to Joseph. However, comparison of the manuscripts with Joseph's personal (holographic) writings falsified that assumption. And what was worse, it turned out that the "bad grammar" was normal, high grammar in Early Modern English. Stan Carmack's demonstration of that fact left me mystified. Still does. It tends to leave Joseph Smith as no more than a well-trained talking dog when dictating the BofM manuscript. That does not actually leave him as less of a prophet, unless one attributes to him abilities which prophets do not need to have. Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 28 minutes ago, Nevo said: This is a great story, but I doubt it's true. At least not as recorded. As Dan Vogel has noted, "it is doubtful that Harris could have found a stone by the river that was identical in shape, size, color, texture, and the distinctive diagonal stripe as Smith's own stone; and, too, Harris would have had to rely on his memory of Smith's stone, not having it with him at the river for comparison. Smith had carried the stone with him on his person for six years and had spent countless hours staring at it" (Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, 124). Also, the account comes from a second-hand source in 1881—53 years after the events it purports to describe. I suspect this is a story that grew with the telling. Perhaps. But there is the hat, and the darkness inside. How easy would it have been to just assume that it is the same stone and to try to carry on translating in the dark? Joseph did say it was "as dark as Egypt" in there, which would make perfect sense. Joseph need not have examined the stone at all. 1 Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 9 hours ago, rongo said: .................................. 9. David Whitmer reported an instance where Joseph had had an argument with Emma, and couldn’t translate at all. After praying in the orchard for an hour and apologizing to Emma, he was able to translate again. „He could do nothing save he was humble and faithful.“ 10. When this is coupled with the description of the spiritual requirements of translation in D&C 8 and 9, it is clear that translation was not an automatic, mechanical process such as reading sentences off a stone. He had to be spiritually in tune, study it out in his mind, seek confirmation from God, and interpret the answer. 11. The apparent process of translating the Book of Abraham (Kirtland Egyptian Papers, Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, etc.), supports this.* A Hindu yogi or Buddhist monk would likely make the same assertions about mindfulness in meditation, but such requirements would match Joseph's failure to translate until he apologized to Emma for some infraction. We have read the same requirements for use of the Liahona. These devices don't work well if your mind is not right. Comes under the heading of learning to be a prophet. Not an academic exercise. 1 Link to comment
Nevo Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 (edited) John-Charles Duffy treats Roberts's "Manual theory" at length in a recent article on the Gospel Topics essay on Book of Mormon translation. He notes that through much of the twentieth century Roberts's "composed-translation" scenario "was advocated in church publications and enjoyed widespread support among LDS intellectuals, even intellectuals who could be classed as theologically conservative." However, "the intellectual landscape shifted dramatically . . . in the 1980s-90s, when a wave of challenges to Book of Mormon historicity within the LDS intellectual community prompted both a conservative backlash and the appearance of a new, more liberal translation theory—the 'expansion' scenario—as an attempt at a mediating position. On the conservative side, some LDS scholars associated with FARMS revived a read-translation scenario, which they maintained was superior not only to the new, fiercely contested expansion scenario but also to the by then time-honored composed-translation scenario. Their position won out in the Gospel Topics essay" (Duffy, "The 'Book of Mormon Translation' Essay in Historical Context," in The LDS Gospel Topics Series: A Scholarly Engagement, ed. Matthew L. Harris and Newell G. Bringhurst [Signature Books, 2020], 100). I share Roberts's distaste for the position that Joseph "did nothing but look and repeat mechanically what he saw [reflected in the interpreters]," that Joseph was just a passive observer of the translation. I think the EModE theory is nonsense. The reporter Matthew Davis recorded Joseph Smith as saying of the Book of Mormon that "if there was such a thing on earth as the author of it, then he (Smith) was the author," but also that it was "communicated to him direct from heaven" (quoted in Larry E. Morris, A Documentary History of the Book of Mormon, 261). I believe that Joseph dictated by inspiration ("by the gift and power of God") and also that he shaped the text in some form. As he did with all his revelations. Edited February 2, 2021 by Nevo Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 9 hours ago, rongo said: ................................. 14. New Testament evidence that inspired utterances were written in „barbaric Greek;“ i.e., that grammatical and syntactical perfection are not a characteristic of scripture. Scripture is given in the idiom of the audience. 15. „There can be no reasonable doubt that had Joseph Smith and his associates been finished English scholars and the facts and ideas represented by the Nephite characters on the plates been given him by inspiration of God through the Urim and Thummim, those ideas would have been expressed in flawless English.“ Both claims are true, but not applicable, because the BofM was delivered in "flawless English," flawless Early Modern English, which is why we find such consternation. How can that be? people ask, and rightly so. In fact, Scripture appears sometimes in ordinary grammar (NT) or in very high grammar (Isaiah, Psalms, and BofM). 9 hours ago, rongo said: 16. A letter to President Joseph F. Smith was forwarded to Roberts for a response. The writer wanted an explanation for large sections of verbatim King James Bible passages in the Book of Mormon. Roberts: 1st --- It is a fact that there are lengthy passages from Isaiah and other sections of the Bible that closely rely on the KJV, when they are not outright verbatim. 2nd --- „It is a fact that no two persons will take the same manuscript and make translations from one language into another, and the language of the two translations be alike.“ Roberts mentions the brass plates as providing the Old Testament material (including the extra-canonical material from Zenock, Zeons, Neum, etc.), and that Jesus Himself provided other sections, such as Malachi. Mormon and Moroni also teach things, such as Paul’s teachings on charity, that closely mirror the New Testament. [Here I depart from Roberts in specifics, while agreeing in general. He states that where the ideas expressed are so close to the KJV that it makes sense, Joseph used the KJV. Not simply Roberts, but other scholars assume that Joseph actually used a copy of the Bible in such instances. This requires close inspection of the actual quotations, and comparison with different editions of the KJV. 9 hours ago, rongo said: .................................. 17. Letters from members: #1 Your theory in the young men’s manuals contradicts Whitmer and Harris. Shouldn’t we side with the three witnesses? Roberts: The Harris statements are not at first-hand at all; they come through Edward Stevenson. Neither Harris nor Whitmer had any personal experience translating; they could only speak of what they observed, and they applied their own assumptions to those observations. Reiteration of the previous arguments about assuming that Joseph read off the stones being contrary to D&C 8 and 9 and making translation a passive, automatic process that makes God responsible for errors and ideosyncracies of spelling, grammar, and colloquialisms. Impossibility of translation being a one-to-one bringing over from one language to another (the translator has to make it make sense in the target language, which in Joseph Smith’s case, was upstate New York of the 1820s). The evidence points strongly away from a read text in favor of a text dictated after being pondered and expressed. „And, by the way, in passing, I want to ask those who stand up so stoutly for the vindication of what Messrs. Whitmer and Harris have chanced to say on the subject of translation—What about the Lord's description of the same thing in the Doctrine and Covenants? Are they not interested in vindicating that description?” Whitmer and Harris’s recollections also were not recorded and given until they were very advanced in age; they were not given contemporaneous or even near the translation period. A certain amount of memory phenomena are to be expected. 18. Regarding „literal translation,“ Roberts includes a photograph of a page from a literal Greek New Testament, with the Greek text, a literal „bringing over“ in English, and a translation in standard English. This shows, as he puts it, that „to speak of literal translation is to speak of literal nonsense.“ Roberts also quotes from the same source Paul’s address to Agrippa and 1 Peter 4 to show that the translator has to make it make sense in the target language, or he will simply confuse the audience and open himself and the work up to ridicule. The evidence points in the direction of a D&C 8 and 9 process, rather than Joseph reading a verbatim text. If there were a verbatim text, then the work of actually translating the Nephite record would already have been done; he merely read it off...................................... Is there an acid test by which we can settle this vexing question? Or are we doomed to ignorance and confusion? Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 22 minutes ago, Nevo said: John-Charles Duffy treats Roberts's "Manual theory" at length in a recent article on the Gospel Topics essay on Book of Mormon translation. He notes that through much of the twentieth century Roberts's "composed-translation" scenario "was advocated in church publications and enjoyed widespread support among LDS intellectuals, even intellectuals who could be classed as theologically conservative." However, "the intellectual landscape shifted dramatically . . . in the 1980s-90s, when a wave of challenges to Book of Mormon historicity within the LDS intellectual community prompted both a conservative backlash and the appearance of a new, more liberal translation theory—the 'expansion' scenario—as an attempt at a mediating position. On the conservative side, some LDS scholars associated with FARMS revived a read-translation scenario, which they maintained was superior not only to the new, fiercely contested expansion scenario but also to the by then time-honored composed-translation scenario. Their position won out in the Gospel Topics essay" (Duffy, "The 'Book of Mormon Translation' Essay in Historical Context," in The LDS Gospel Topics Series: A Scholarly Engagement, ed. Matthew L. Harris and Newell G. Bringhurst [Signature Books, 2020], 100). There is nothing "liberal" about the old midrashic, expansionist theory of Scripture. It is a fact of history, and such conservative groups as the Essenes (actually ultra-conservative) used it liberally, as did the rabbis for centuries thereafter. That Blake Ostler sought to apply it to the Book of Mormon hardly seems odd, given the nature of the text of the BofM. I and the Rev Wes Walters had been applying it to the BofM for years before Ostler came on the scene. Why? Because Walters and I had spent a great deal of time reading biblical scholarship. And it is certainly true that intermountain Western scholarship has been pretty slow on the uptake. 22 minutes ago, Nevo said: I share Roberts's distaste for the position that Joseph "did nothing but look and repeat mechanically what he saw [reflected in the interpreters]," that Joseph was just a passive observer of the translation. I think the EModE theory is nonsense. The reporter Matthew Davis recorded Joseph Smith as saying of the Book of Mormon that "if there was such a thing on earth as the author of it, then he (Smith) was the author," but also that it was "communicated to him direct from heaven" (quoted in Larry E. Morris, A Documentary History of the Book of Mormon, 261). I believe that Joseph dictated by inspiration ("by the gift and power of God") and also that he shaped the text in some form. As he did with all his revelations. We need specific, hard evidence to support or falsify these competing theories. Not everyone is going to be happy with the results. Link to comment
Glenn101 Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 10 hours ago, Nevo said: I think the EModE theory is nonsense. Why? What is your evidence to refute the work and research of Stanford Carmack and Royal Skousen? 1 Link to comment
smac97 Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 20 hours ago, rongo said: I think the best explanation of the available evidence for the translation method of the Book of Mormon is from B.H. Roberts in 1903-1906. I think it still remains superior, even to recent general authority „smart phone“ explanations (Joseph Smith read the Urim and Thummim or the seer stone like someone today reads a smart phone) or the Early Modern English theory of the last few years. Have you compared and contrasted Roberts' explanation with Royal Skousen's? This may be a good place to start: Translating the Book of Mormon: Evidence from the Original Manuscript Thanks, -Smac Link to comment
Nevo Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Glenn101 said: Why? What is your evidence to refute the work and research of Stanford Carmack and Royal Skousen? I've laid out my objections in many posts over the past few years. Here are some of them, if you're interested: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72961-musings-re-historicity-and-the-book-of-mormon/page/6/?tab=comments#comment-1209978905 https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72961-musings-re-historicity-and-the-book-of-mormon/page/6/?tab=comments#comment-1209979105 https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72933-liberal-theology-and-traditional-lds-apologetics/page/6/?tab=comments#comment-1209976981 https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73019-the-1922-bh-roberts-meeting-with-general-authoriteis-re-book-of-mormon-problems-and-the-secret-meetings-that-followed-it/page/4/?tab=comments#comment-1209983497 https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73019-the-1922-bh-roberts-meeting-with-general-authoriteis-re-book-of-mormon-problems-and-the-secret-meetings-that-followed-it/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-1209983076 https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73063-emode-as-proof-js-did-not-write-bom/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-1209985705 https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73063-emode-as-proof-js-did-not-write-bom/page/5/?tab=comments#comment-1209985515 Edited February 2, 2021 by Nevo 1 Link to comment
rongo Posted February 2, 2021 Author Share Posted February 2, 2021 55 minutes ago, smac97 said: Have you compared and contrasted Roberts' explanation with Royal Skousen's? This may be a good place to start: Translating the Book of Mormon: Evidence from the Original Manuscript Thanks, -Smac Oh, yes. I own the Original and Printer's Manuscripts volumes, and have a bunch of Critical Text Project things from Skousen. The EmodE theory is different from his --- he does posit places of "tight" and places of "loose" translation, which I think the text clearly shows (spelling of names, for instance). Link to comment
rongo Posted February 2, 2021 Author Share Posted February 2, 2021 1 hour ago, Glenn101 said: Why? What is your evidence to refute the work and research of Stanford Carmack and Royal Skousen? I also don't find the EmodE theory to be persuasive or compelling (no animosity, just disagreement). I don't think many examples of "exclusively" archaic grammar and usage truly are (I think that examples contemporaneous to Joseph Smith can be found). I also find the theory of a "ghost committee" of reformers several centuries before Joseph Smith who translated the text and transmitted it to Joseph to be weird and unnecessary. I think the manuscripts, textual evidence, and witness accounts all attest to reality more in line with Elder Roberts's thoughts in the early 20th century. Link to comment
rongo Posted February 2, 2021 Author Share Posted February 2, 2021 Here are some items from the 26 page handout we had at our "Book of Mormon: Fact or Fiction?" fireside back in 2010 (we did a series of three, this being the second one. My primary president was the presenter, and there were 96 slides. The handout was interesting and necessary information not covered in the slides. There was also a Q&A that went very late --- 130 non-members were present). Some of this has a bearing on the question of translation method. Criticisms of the Book of Mormon reflecting 19th Century American language "Today some critics are fond of pointing out that the Book of Mormon is written in the very language of Joseph Smith's own society. That is as if a professor of French literature were to prove Champollion a fraud by showing after patient years of study that his translation of the Rosetta Stone was not in Egyptian at all but in the very type of French that Champollion and his friends were wont to use! The discovery is totally without significance, of course, because Champollion never claimed to be writing Egyptian, but to be rendering it into his own language." --- (Hugh Nibley, “An Approach to the Book of Mormon, 8). Would having the plates today settle everything? "Critics of the Book of Mormon often remark sarcastically that it is a great pity that the golden plates have disappeared, since they would very conveniently prove Joseph Smith's story. They would do nothing of the sort. The presence of the plates would only prove that there were plates, no more: it would not prove that Nephites wrote them, or that an angel brought them, or that they had been translated by the gift and power of God; and we can be sure that scholars would quarrel about the writing on them for generations without coming to any agreement, exactly as they did about the writings of Homer and parts of the Bible. The possession of the plates would have a very disruptive effect, and it would prove virtually nothing." --- (ibid, 21). If the Book of Mormon is scripture from God, shouldn’t it be 100% error-free and not require any corrections or changes in later editions? Mormon and Moroni, the compilers and editors of the Book of Mormon record, emphasized that their record, although inspired, is not infallible, inerrant, or error-free, and that it is subject to weaknesses and imperfections. “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.” — Title page, last plate; Moroni, son of Mormon. “And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these.” — Mormon 8:12, Moroni. “And I know the record which I make to be a just and a true record; nevertheless there are many things which, according to our language, we are not able to write.” — 3 Nephi 5:18, Mormon. “And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock at these things, because of our weakness in writing . . . And thou hast made us that we could write but little, because of the awkwardness of our hands. Behold, thou hast not made us mighty in writing . . . Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we cannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words.” — Ether 12:23-25, Moroni How can Book of Mormon contain the “fulness of the gospel” if it doesn’t discuss vital doctrines such as the pre-existence, three degrees of glory, the priesthood, the temple, etc.? Among the most basic and fundamental doctrines in Mormonism is the 9th Article of Faith: “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God.” The Book of Mormon itself makes it clear that “greater things than” the Book of Mormon would be known to those who “receive this record and shall not condemn it” (Mormon 8:12). The lengthy section in 1 Nephi 13 that details both the importance of the Bible (the book that “proceedeth out of the mouth of a Jew”) and the Book of Mormon (“I will manifest myself unto thy seed, that they shall write many things which I shall minister unto them, which shall be plain and precious; and after thy seed shall be destroyed, and dwindle in unbelief, and also the seed of thy brethren, behold, these things shall be hid up, to come forth unto the Gentiles, by the gift and power of the Lamb”) also tells of “other books” which “shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them” (1 Nephi 13:39-40). In other words, both Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon clearly point out that many important doctrines would come forth after and outside of the Book of Mormon. And these predictions were dictated to scribes before the dictation of the Book of Mormon was even completed or the Church organized, let alone the Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Abraham, or Inspired Revision of the Bible had even been contemplated! “First of all, let’s consider what the Lord means by a ‘fulness of the gospel.’ He did not mean to convey the impression that every truth belonging to exaltation in the kingdom of God had been delivered to the Nephites and was recorded in the Book of Mormon . . . Neither would this statement imply that every truth belonging to the celestial kingdom and exaltation therein was to be found within the covers of the Book of Mormon . . . The fulness of the gospel . . . has reference to the principles of salvation by which we attain unto this glory. Therefore, the Lord has revealed in the Book of Mormon all that is needful to direct people who are willing to hearken to its precepts, to a fulness of the blessings of the kingdom of God. It is beyond dispute . . . that the Book of Mormon teaches that the first principles of the gospel are faith in God, repentance, baptism for remission of sin, the gift of the Holy Ghost, obedience to divine law, and that man cannot be saved in ignorance of these divine truths.” — Joseph Fielding Smith, “Answers to Gospel Questions,” 3:95-97. The Book of Mormon contains lengthy word-for-word excerpts from the King James Bible. How can Latter-day Saints answer critics who insist that this is proof that Joseph Smith simply used the Bible as the basis for the Book of Mormon? The best treatment of this question is probably by the late Mormon scholar Hugh Nibley in an article for the Church News: “The next most devastating argument against the Book of Mormon was that it actually quoted the Bible. The early critics were simply staggered by the incredible stupidity of including large sections of the Bible in a book which they insisted was specifically designed to fool the Bible-reading public. They screamed blasphemy and plagiarism at the top of their lungs, but today any biblical scholar knows that it would be extremely suspicious if a book purporting to be the product of a society of pious emigrants from Jerusalem in ancient times did not quote the Bible. No lengthy religious writing of the Hebrews could conceivably be genuine if it was not full of scriptural quotations. “ . . . the emphasis [in criticisms] has now shifted to two other points, (1) that the Book of Mormon contains, to quote another writer of Christianity Today, ‘passages lifted bodily from the King James Version,’ and (2) that it quotes, not only from the Old Testament, but also the New Testament as well . . . As to the ‘passages lifted bodily from the King James Version,’ we first ask, ‘How else does one quote scripture if not bodily?’ And why should anyone quoting the Bible to American readers of 1830 not follow the only version of the Bible known to them? “Actually the Bible passages quoted in the Book of Mormon often differ from the King James Version, but where the latter is correct there is every reason why it should be followed. When Jesus and the Apostles and, for that matter, the Angel Gabriel quote the scriptures in the New Testament, do they recite from some mysterious Urtext? Do they quote the prophets of old in the ultimate original? Do they give their own inspired translations? No, they do not. They quote the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Old Testament prepared in the third century B.C. Why so? Because that happened to be the received standard version of the Bible accepted by the readers of the Greek New Testament. When ‘holy men of God’ quote the scriptures it is always in the received standard version of the people they are addressing. We do not claim the King James Version or the Septuagint to be the original scriptures—in fact, nobody on earth today knows where the original scriptures are or what they say. Inspired men have in every age been content to accept the received version of the people among whom they labored, with the Spirit giving correction where correction was necessary. Since the Book of Mormon is a translation, ‘with all its faults,’ [this was the title of a series of articles on Bible manuscripts and texts in Christianity Today at the time of Nibley’s article] into English for English-speaking people whose fathers for generations had known no other scriptures but the standard English Bible, it would be both pointless and confusing to present the scriptures to them in any other form, so far as their teachings were correct. What is thought to be a very serious charge against the Book of Mormon today is that it, a book written down long before New Testament times and on the other side of the world, actually quotes the New Testament! True, it is the same Savior speaking in both, and the same Holy Ghost, and so we can expect the same doctrines in the same language. But what about the "Faith, Hope and Charity" passage in Moroni 7:45? Its resemblance to 1 Corinthians 13 is undeniable. This particular passage, recently singled out for attack in Christianity Today, is actually one of those things that turn out to be a striking vindication of the Book of Mormon. For the whole passage, which scholars have labeled ‘the Hymn to Charity,’ was shown early in this century by a number of first-rate investigators working independently (A. Harnack, J. Weiss, R. Reizenstein) to have originated not with Paul at all, but to go back to some older but unknown source: Paul is merely quoting from the record. Now it so happens that other Book of Mormon writers were also peculiarly fond of quoting from the record. Captain Moroni, for example, reminds his people of an old tradition about the two garments of Joseph, telling them a detailed story which I have found only in a thousand-year-old commentary on the Old Testament, a work still untranslated and quite unknown to the world of Joseph Smith. So I find it not a refutation but a confirmation of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon when Paul and Moroni both quote from a once well-known but now lost Hebrew writing. Now as to [the] question, ‘Why did Joseph Smith, a nineteenth century American farm boy, translate the Book of Mormon into seventeenth century King James English instead of into contemporary language?’ The first thing to note is that the ‘contemporary language’ of the country-people of New England 130 years ago was not so far from King James English. Even the New England writers of later generations, like Webster, Melville, and Emerson, lapse into its stately periods and "thees and thous" in their loftier passages. For that matter, we still pray in that language and teach our small children to do the same; that is, we still recognize the validity of a special speech set apart for special occasions. My old Hebrew and Arabic teacher, Professor Popper, would throw a student out of the class who did not use ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ in constructing. ‘This is the word of God!’ he would cry indignantly. ‘This is the Bible! Let us show a little respect; let us have a little formal English here!’ Furthermore, the Book of Mormon is full of scripture, and for the world of Joseph Smith's day, the King James Version was the Scripture, as we have noted; large sections of the Book of Mormon, therefore, had to be in the language of the King James Version—and what of the rest of it? That is scripture, too. One can think of lots of arguments for using King James English in the Book of Mormon, but the clearest comes out of very recent experience. In the past decade, as you know, certain ancient non-biblical texts, discovered near the Dead Sea, have been translated by modern, up-to-date American readers. I open at random a contemporary Protestant scholar's modern translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and what do I read? ‘For thine is the battle, and by the strength of thy hand their corpses were scattered without burial. Goliath the Hittite, a mighty man of valor, thou didst deliver into the hand of thy servant David.’ Obviously the man who wrote this knew the Bible, and we must not forget that ancient scribes were consciously archaic in their writing, so that most of the scriptures were probably in old-fashioned language the day they were written down. To efface that solemn antique style by the latest up-to-date usage is to translate falsely. At any rate, Professor Burrows . . . falls naturally and without apology into the language of the King James Bible. Or take a modern Jewish scholar who purposely avoids archaisms in his translation of the Scrolls for modern American readers: ‘All things are inscribed before Thee in a recording script, for every moment of time, for the infinite cycles of years, in their several appointed times. No single thing is hidden, naught missing from Thy presence.’ Professor Gaster, too, falls under the spell of our religious idiom. By frankly using that idiom, the Book of Mormon avoids the necessity of having to be redone into ‘modern English’ every thirty or forty years. If the plates were being translated for the first time today, it would still be King James English!” (Hugh Nibley, “The Prophetic Book of Mormon,” [Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1990] pp. 214-218). Link to comment
rongo Posted February 2, 2021 Author Share Posted February 2, 2021 The full table of contents for the handout (I'd post it, but the file size restrictions prevent it). Formatting and "plain texting" wreak havoc, but I don't want to sit and format it here. : Useful and Relevant Quotations ………………………………………………………………………………………………………3-5 ---Duty of Latter-day Saints in dealing with criticisms of the Book of Mormon 3 ---Duty of critics of the Book of Mormon concerning Latter-day Saints’ responses 3 ---Insincerity of demands for “proof” 3 ---Non-Mormon Christians, the Bible, and archaeology 3-4 ---Criticisms of the Book of Mormon reflecting 19th Century American language 4 ---Would having the plates today settle everything? 4 ---Elder Dallin H. Oaks on assumptions about Book of Mormon lands and peoples 4-5 ---Hugh Nibley’s Parable of the Diamond 5 Three Common Criticisms and Concerns about the Book of Mormon …………………………………………… 5-9 ---If the Book of Mormon is scripture from God, shouldn’t it be 100% error-free and not require any corrections or changes in later editions? 5-6 ---How can Book of Mormon contain the “fulness of the gospel” if it doesn’t discuss vital doctrines such as the pre-existence, three degrees of glory, the priesthood, the temple, etc.? 6 --- The Book of Mormon contains lengthy word-for-word excerpts from the King James Bible. How can Latter-day Saints answer critics who insist that this is proof that Joseph Smith simply used the Bible as the basis for the Book of Mormon? 6-9 Changes in the Book of Mormon Text ……………………………………………………………………………………………..9-13 Cross-cultural Onomastica (“Loanshifting”) ……………………………………………………………………………………13-15 Linguistic “Bulls-eye” Hits in the Book of Mormon ………………………………………………………………………..15-18 Case Study in Making up Names: The Spaulding Manuscript vs. the Book of Mormon ………………..18-20 DNA Criticisms against the Book of Mormon …………………………………………………………………………………20-26 ---Problem #1: What does modern “Jewish” or “Hebrew” DNA look like? 21 ---Problem #2: Determining 600 B.C. “Israelite” DNA 21-23 ---Problem #3: Book of Mormon peoples merged and interacted with numerically larger native populations 23-25 ---Problem #4: DNA analysis doesn’t give anything close to a full view of heritage and ancestry 25 ---What about the statement in the current introduction to the Book of Mormon (1981 edition) that states that Book of Mormon peoples are the “principal ancestor” of the American Indians? 25-26 Link to comment
Glenn101 Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 4 hours ago, Nevo said: I've laid out my objections in many posts over the past few years. Here are some of them, if you're interested: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72961-musings-re-historicity-and-the-book-of-mormon/page/6/?tab=comments#comment-1209978905 https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72961-musings-re-historicity-and-the-book-of-mormon/page/6/?tab=comments#comment-1209979105 https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72933-liberal-theology-and-traditional-lds-apologetics/page/6/?tab=comments#comment-1209976981 https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73019-the-1922-bh-roberts-meeting-with-general-authoriteis-re-book-of-mormon-problems-and-the-secret-meetings-that-followed-it/page/4/?tab=comments#comment-1209983497 https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73019-the-1922-bh-roberts-meeting-with-general-authoriteis-re-book-of-mormon-problems-and-the-secret-meetings-that-followed-it/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-1209983076 https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73063-emode-as-proof-js-did-not-write-bom/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-1209985705 https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73063-emode-as-proof-js-did-not-write-bom/page/5/?tab=comments#comment-1209985515 Thanks for the links. To me there are two questions. Is there EmodE in the Book of Mormon? If so, does it tend to show that Joseph Smith was the author of the text of the Book of Mormon? Link to comment
smac97 Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 4 hours ago, rongo said: I also don't find the EmodE theory to be persuasive or compelling (no animosity, just disagreement). I don't think many examples of "exclusively" archaic grammar and usage truly are (I think that examples contemporaneous to Joseph Smith can be found). I also find the theory of a "ghost committee" of reformers several centuries before Joseph Smith who translated the text and transmitted it to Joseph to be weird and unnecessary. I think the manuscripts, textual evidence, and witness accounts all attest to reality more in line with Elder Roberts's thoughts in the early 20th century. This has been my sentiment as well. The difference is that you probably examined the EmodE theory in some detail, whereas I am mostly spitballing. Thanks, -Smac Link to comment
Ryan Dahle Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 (edited) 6 hours ago, rongo said: Oh, yes. I own the Original and Printer's Manuscripts volumes, and have a bunch of Critical Text Project things from Skousen. The EmodE theory is different from his --- he does posit places of "tight" and places of "loose" translation, which I think the text clearly shows (spelling of names, for instance). Many people have speculated about the final implications of the EModE theory, and there is no developed working theory or consensus on that part of it. But I think it is obviously clear that Skousen recognizes an unusual amount of EModE in the text. Skousen was the one who initially hunted down lexical items that he thought were unusually archaic. And he has now been assisted by Stanford Carmack in describing the Book of Mormon's EModE syntax and grammar. Skousen clearly subscribes to the EModE theory in the sense that he concludes the text is primarily from the EModE period and that this evidence strongly precludes Joseph as having been responsible for its wording. Edited February 2, 2021 by Ryan Dahle 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts