Book of Mormon "Horses"

[enummaelish]

Hello Dan:

I

[Benjamin McGuire]

MC writes:

Here's how I view the situation. Since the only type of translation anyone on earth is familiar with is the traditional, non-God inspired kind, it becomes difficult to say what to expect from a God-inspired/aided translation. According to a traditional translation, there are different methods of translating, so-called "loose" and "tight" methods. Apologists keep wanting to pull the ol' switcheroo whenever one method seems to benefit their argument. Adieu? Loose translation. Curelom? Tight translation. Three thousands grammatical errors? Loose translation. Description of translation process by every contemporary account? Tight translation.

I am pretty much a tight translation kind of guy. All the way.

The challenge is this - despite your acknowledgement that "it becomes difficult to say what to expect from a God-inspired/aided translation", many here are apparently more than willing to claim what this translation could not be.

This ad hoc flip-flopping toward whichever translation paradigm best suits the apologist's purpose is what is so frustrating to critics. The 3000 grammatical errors clearly demonstrate that JS was using his own language and his own manner of speaking to translate the record (of course, assuming he didn't just make it up.) Yet transliterated words like deseret, cumom, and curelom violate a conceptual method of translation.

Let's say that Joseph read it. God didn't write it, and neither did God write the original.

More to the point though, why, in a translation for which Joseph Smith seems to be (at least initially) the target audience, would you expect a translation which did not reflect Joseph's language and vernacular?

As far as a tight translation goes, what was the process that God used (or should have used) to translate the text?

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan writes:

No. What does that have to do with this. Is the 18th century poet confused and searching for a word that doesn

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan writes:

JS claimed the translation was by the power of God. He simply read the translation from the miraculous stones. Of course, the translation was given by God in English. The notion that JS was somehow involved is latter-day apologetics.

So, on some level, you are agreeing that Joseph Smith exerted influence over the translation without having to be directly involved in the translation of the text himself. And, furthermore, if Joseph was the intended audience of the translation, it stands to reason that his ability to read and understand the text would have exerted even more influence over the text than merely determining the language of the text, right?

Ben

[enummaelish]

Adieu? Loose translation. Curelom? Tight translation.

I do not claim to know all the details involved in an inspired translation process, yet I suppose technically speaking, from my perspective, proper nouns would fall under the category of transliteration as opposed to translation.

[truth dancer]

It seems that believing members here are split.. some believing there were horses and some believing there were not horses.

Anyone pray about their position? Anyone receive any sort of confirmation of their beliefs? Any spiritual direction given to those who are curious? Any comments or further enlightenment from the GAs?

Thanks,

~dancer~

[Mighty Curelom]

I do not claim to know all the details involved in an inspired translation process, yet I suppose technically speaking, from my perspective, proper nouns would fall under the category of transliteration as opposed to translation.

Then you have to account for translated proper nouns, like Bountiful. Bountiful was apparently translated, while other proper nouns, like Zarahemla, were not. And in at least one situation--the word deseret--the reformed egyptian word is given and it's english translation. To make clear how out of place this odd practice is, imagine that you're translating a text from spanish to english. Why would you arbitrarily pick out one word, give the spanish word, then the english translation?

Cuando yo era en Mexico, hable con muchas chicas.

Were I to translate this sentence, it would look like this--

When I was in Mexico, I talked to many girls.

Were I to translate this sentence using the same method JS used in the deseret verse, it would look like this--

When I was in Mexico, I talked to many chicas, which, being interpretted, means girls.

The first method makes sense, but the second method is ridiculous. Why choose one word, seemingly at random, and give both the original word and the translated meaning? It just doesn't make sense.

[Tarski]

While I believe that Joseph clearly translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, I do not suggest that this extraordinary gift allowed the Prophet to use words beyond his own vocabulary

Wasn't Curelom beyond his vocabulary?

[Brant Gardner]

Mighty Curelom:

And in at least one situation--the word deseret--the reformed egyptian word is given and it's english translation.

You would have a point if you had your information correct. Unfortunately, your information is so far wrong that your conclusion is baseless.

Point 1) It isn't "reformed" Egyptian until Mormon's time. That isn't the reference Nephi used. This indicates a change over time although the nature of the change is not described.

Point 2) Deseret is a Jaredite word. The Jaredite language is not referred to as Egyptian, and preceded the Nephites in the New World by perhaps a thousand years.

Given only the distinction between Jaredite and Nephite, the idea of the plate text giving Deseret as a term and then interpreting it is completely within historical plausibility. If you want to find a reason to wonder about the translation method you need a different example. I would suggest one that uses the facts correctly.

[Paul Osborne]

If JS needs to refer to some animal that is not a horse, why use the word horse? You see, he has already shown that he his willing to use unknown (or made up) words like curelom. So I guess since he didn't follow that route in this case and yet he did in the case of whatever animal the curelom was, we can conclude that "horse" means horse.

I for one felt that Ben brought up a valid point in suggesting that Nephi may have used the word horse to describe an animal for which Nephi (not Joseph) had no other name. As demonstrated, this process is not unusual.

John A. Widstoe; Joseph Smith

[Paul Osborne]

For all intents and purposes, lets just assume that Joseph read the words from a stone in a hat. Joseph Smith doesn't "need" to refer to anything. He isn't trying to refer to anything. He is merely reading words which he sees in a hat.

The difference between the two is that the text may have transliterated "curelom". But Nephi is the one who redefines "horse" to refer to a larger conceptual and semantic model than it did originally.

OK, so why would Nephi do such a thing? What were those "horses" then?

You aren't going with deer or tapir are you?

In the day it is ever preached at the pulpit that horses were not horses and someone tries to sell me a deer or such - I will boo right there in the chapel and walk out! Then I will write a letter to my Stake President. Then I will write a letter to the President of the Church. DON'T COME TO DALLAS AND PREACH NONHORSE DOCTRINE!

I'm a Mormon that believes in horses! Horses are a Mormon thing. That is what the Book of Mormon teaches. Also, children may be baptized when they reach the age of 8. Or was that some sort of mistranslation?

God help us. I don't know how much longer I can take this. I pray that the critics of the church will be patience with us Mormons as we try and get our act together.

Paul O

[MorningStar]

For all intents and purposes, lets just assume that Joseph read the words from a stone in a hat. Joseph Smith doesn't "need" to refer to anything. He isn't trying to refer to anything. He is merely reading words which he sees in a hat.

The difference between the two is that the text may have transliterated "curelom". But Nephi is the one who redefines "horse" to refer to a larger conceptual and semantic model than it did originally.

OK, so why would Nephi do such a thing? What were those "horses" then?

You aren't going with deer or tapir are you?

In the day it is ever preached at the pulpit that horses were not horses and someone tries to sell me a deer or such - I will boo right there in the chapel and walk out! Then I will write a letter to my Stake President. Then I will write a letter to the President of the Church. DON'T COME TO DALLAS AND PREACH NONHORSE DOCTRINE!

I'm a Mormon that believes in horses! Horses are a Mormon thing. That is what the Book of Mormon teaches. Also, children may be baptized when they reach the age of 8. Or was that some sort of mistranslation?

God help us. I don't know how much longer I can take this. I pray that the critics of the church will be patience with us Mormons as we try and get our act together.

Paul O

I don't think they were horses. I think they were lemurs.

[Paul Osborne]

I don't think they were horses. I think they were lemurs.

Fine. Just don't come to Dallas and start preaching that at the pulpit when I'm in the room.

Have you ever seen a Texas tornado!

Paul O

[Zeitgeist]

I thought I would share some things regarding the translation. Most interested in this thread will want to look at David Whitmer

[MorningStar]

I don't think they were horses.  I think they were lemurs.

Fine. Just don't come to Dallas and start preaching that at the pulpit when I'm in the room.

Have you ever seen a Texas tornado!

Paul O

I tried to ride a lemur once.

And then we buried it in the backyard.

No, I've never seen a Texas tornado, but I slept through one once when I was in Wichita Falls.

[Paul Osborne]

A horse is a horse of course a horse!

I believe in horses!

Horses!

Horses!

Paul O

[Mighty Curelom]

Here's another example of translation oddities.

1 Nephi 17:5 reads

And we did come to the land which we called Bountiful, because of its much fruit and also wild honey; and all these things were prepared of the Lord that we might not perish. And we beheld the sea, which we called Irreantum, which, being interpretted, is many waters.

Here the author (ostensibly Nephi) gives two proper nouns- Bountiful and Irreantum. Bountiful is translated without giving the Nephite word while Irreantum gives both the Nephite word and it's translation. Written in the Nephite language, it would look like this:

And we beheld the sea, which we called Many Waters, which, being interpretted, is many waters.

Or maybe Joseph decided to include the Nephite word with an English explanation directly following it, as an editorial decision. But why do this for Irreantum but not Bountiful?

[Brant Gardner]

Mighty Curelom:

Better question. When such things happen in an original text it indicates that one word is common in the original language and the other is not - or is not in the same language as the original. Given the text's suggestion that Nephi is at least bilingual that doesn't prose a problem for the original.

If you are wondering why some words are left in the original and others are translated, then you are dealing with the entire issue of how the translation was done. That is a question for evidence rather than assumption and I doubt that this is the place for a serious discussion of it. It takes way too long and way too much data to wade through.

The very first problem, however, it do decide whether or not it is a translation. If you decide that it is not it seems pretty silly to discuss how it was done. It is also remarkably irrelevant to bring up presumed translation issues as "proof" of either the translation or the lack thereof. That is premature.

If you believe that it is a translation based on other textual evidence, then you can use the nature of the existing text to work out the method of translation. Questions such as this one are part of the data. Assumptions behind the question such as you clearly have are not the proper approach to analyzing data.

[Brant Gardner]

I think you were responding to me and not to Mighty Curelom - MC would certainly not suggest believe as I read his/her posts. Your reading of my comments is also incorrect. I didn't say one has to believe and then all things are explained. I suggested that it is premature to discuss a method of translation before establishing that it was a translation. There is a big difference. If you begin with the assumption that the text was not a translation, then you are free to bring up all kinds of issues and posit them as reasons that it wasn't a translation. The problem with that type of analysis is that it depends upon the original assumption that it wasn't a translation, and upon subsequent assumptions of what a translation should have been. Both of those are flimsy foundations for reasoned argument.

If, however, you begin properly by establishing the fact of translation first you may then discover the method. Since Joseph was the only one who actually translated and he did not say how it was done, we have the text as the only data on which to extract the translation methodology. Notice, however, that one must proceed from data to analysis. This is very different from proceeding from assumption to analysis, as in "this is how I think a translation should have worked." The only thing that reasoning tells us is what the analyzer thinks. That may make an interesting sociological commentary on those who so opine, but it doesn't, and cannot, tell us anything serious about the text.

[Paul Osborne]

If you believe that it is a translation based on other textual evidence, then you can use the nature of the existing text to work out the method of translation. Questions such as this one are part of the data. Assumptions behind the question such as you clearly have are not the proper approach to analyzing data.

I use the definitions given in the Joseph Smith Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar to decipher the inspired statement Joseph Smith gave to all the world:

[enummaelish]

Hello MC:

Or maybe Joseph decided to include the Nephite word with an English explanation directly following it, as an editorial decision. But why do this for Irreantum but not Bountiful?

For the same reason that other foreign i.e. non Nephite (meaning Hebrew written in reformed Egyptian) words such as Curelom appear in the text. This literary convention is really quite common. Consider the first line from law 49 in the Mesopotamian Code of Hammurapi:

[osteotome]

Enjoyed Z's lengthy detail of all those involved in the translating process. One thing he didn't mention is that Joseph would just start off each tranlation session right were he left off. He wouldn't ask about were they had finishedd the prior session he would just start off right were he'd left off.

Also Emma stated that when he would come to a proper noun he'd spell out the name as best the english alphabet would match. An analysis of the proper nouns in the BoM do not match that of 19th Century upper state NY (nor for that matter the Bible of any other text that Joseph Smith had available to him at the time). Names are very singular for a place and time. Not too many 95 year old Crystals, Ambers or 2 year old Gertrudes running around or too many Keiko, Hitomi of any age here in the US.

Interesting how many of the names in the BoM match similar names from the same time time and place--Jerusalem refugees in Elaphantine, Sinai circa 600BC and how the Jaredite names do much the same.

Forgive me if this has all been addressed ad nauseum and I'm sorry I'm not a gifted writer and I'v not included my sources--just a strugling repairman of sorts.

[Zeitgeist]

Osteotome,

Thanks for the input. You are right those wthings were said about the translation. Curious about what your opinions are concerning the statements that I posted.

Zeitgeist

[Mighty Curelom]

If, however, you begin properly by establishing the fact of translation first you may then discover the method.

That Joseph translated the Book of Mormon from ancient gold plates is far from an established fact. The only people who hold this position are members of the LDS church and its offshoots. More and more members are taking the position shared by Van Hale and Grant Palmer--that the BoM is not an ancient record of actual events. Contrast this with the Bible. Even militant atheists acknowledge the ancient nature of the Bible. People may disagree about who the authors were, or how the text has changed over the years, or whether the events described actually took place, but no one disputes the nature of the bible as an ancient record.

Since Joseph was the only one who actually translated and he did not say how it was done, we have the text as the only data on which to extract the translation methodology.

As Dan Vogel has said, this is latter-day apologetics. Zeitgeist contributed a lengthy post including many contemporary descriptions of the method of translation. It is only since critics have pointed out the many anachronisms and translation oddities pervading the text that apologists have turned to the translation process to excuse these problems. This then becomes a cure-all for any textual inconsistencies and anachronisms that turn up in the BoM.

I assume that you've decided that the BoM is an authentic ancient text based on a revelatory experience, since that is the only method of authentication the Church endorses. How would you convince others who have not received dvine confirmaton that the BoM is an ancient text that it is such? Do you believe the evidence proving historicity is strong enough that a revelatory experience is unnecessary to convincingly demonstrate the BoM as ancient? If so, why hasn't the academic community embraced it?

[Jaybear]

I have to admit, I have read Brant's statement several times, I still don't understand what he is saying. Perhaps someone, can better explain his point in terms other than Daddy of DanseM.

Brant makes this comment: "I suggested that it is premature to discuss a method of translation before establishing that it was a translation. "

This is where he loses me. The BoM purports to be a translation of an ancient record engraved on gold plates. Brant seems to be taking the positon that one cannot argue that the BoM is NOT a translation, but a work of fiction, unless and until one first establishes that it was a translations. Huh?

Brant reasons: "The problem with that type of analysis is that it depends upon the original assumption that it wasn't a translation, and upon subsequent assumptions of what a translation should have been. Both of those are flimsy foundations for reasoned argument."

I am not sure what Brant means here.. When a skeptic argues that the BoM is not a translation of an ancient text, due to the presense of horses in the text, he is not making an assumption but is stating a conclusion based on (1) the refence to the horse in the BoM, and (2) the current state of evidence regarding horses in the Americas. The only assumption to the argument is that the state of knowlege re horses is correct.

This is where the faithful come in. The can challenge this conclusion, by either (1) refusing to accept the state of the evidece re horses, or (2) postit that the refence to horses was the result of a translation error. It is the latter response that leads to the various assumptions (or theories) of the translation methodology. In order to explain how the error came about, the faithful need to posit a theory of tranlsation method consistent with both the descriptions by witnesses, and with the text.

Thus, it seems to me that these dangerous assumptions that Brant warns us about, are not the "foundation" of the skeptic's argument, but more accurately serve as the "foundation" for the faithful attempt to explain errors or anachronisms in the text, in order to support thier other foundational premise that the BoM is a transtion of an ancient record. It seems Brants criticism of the "flimsy" foundation underlying the reasoning process employed better fits the apologists than the critics.

Brant seems to acknolwede this point here: "The very first problem, however, it do decide whether or not it is a translation. If you decide that it is not it seems pretty silly to discuss how it was done."

Bear in mind, it was SMAC, who opened the discussion with a question (explain horses) with the PREMISE that the BoM was a translation. Personally, I thought SMAC's question, assumption in hand, created a good exercise to allow the faithful an opportunty to better understand how the translation process.

The question I would pose to Brant, is just how do you propose that one who is skeptical about the reliablity of spiritual confimation goabout deciding the threshold quesiton you raise. Is it a translation, or is a work of fiction?

What is wrong with simply comparing the culture, geography, language, customs, etc. described in the text, with what we now know about the Americas during the relevant time frame. You seem to suggest its impossible to reach a reasoned conclusion about the merits of JS's claim of having translated an ancient record.

If I were to read a book written in 1830, chronicaling the history of a family rising to prominence in Rome, from 200 to 100 B.C., shouldnt I be able to reach a conclusion about whether the book was a translation of an ancient record or a work of fiction circa 1830, based upon the errors and anacronism as well as matches that appear in the book but were not generally known in 1830?

Brant, setting aside spiritual evidence, hasn't our understaning of ancient America advanced to the point that the overwhelming weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that the BoM is a work of 19th century fiction? Are there any nonLDS mesoamerican scholars that even consider this question an open issue worthy of academic discussion?