Book of Mormon "Horses"

[Benjamin McGuire]

jerm writes:

I could see it being used as a beast of burden but not as a means of transportation. Maybe sheep refered to llamas? Oh yeah, how can those pictures leeuniverse posted on the first page be explained? Are any of them not pre-columbian?

So perhaps you would demonstrate for us when one was actually ridden in the Book of Mormon in an American context?

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan writes:

OK. Nephi sees a Tapir and writes Sus [using Egyptian characters], then JS translates it correctly as

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan writes:

The translation may have been in JS

[Benjamin McGuire]

A final comment now that I am caught up on this thread.

So far, everyone has been so willing to jump after me (and Brant) based on their notions of what they think the translation should have been. Yet, no one has yet to comment on Marco Polo and his Unicorn. And as I pointed out, this is a real world corollary to the situation which I am proposing (at least for Nephi). And it is a corrolary which goes a long way to describe the rlationship between a horse and any of the creatures which have been proposed as possible alternative interpretations based on the functions of the creatures in the text.

Ben

[Brant Gardner]

Ben:

I had missed your comment on Marco Polo's unicorn. I think it is valuable to understand that semantic fields vary widely in their attachment to vocabulary. Just as both the mythical unicorn and the rhinoceros have the "uni" horn, there are other items in languages that cover a wide range of meaning that we don't expect. The Aztec word malinalli can mean grass or hair. That really suggests that its meaning is descriptive of shape and perhaps flexibility. Their naming principles clearly group things together that we would see as dramatically different. The rhinoceros and unicorn would similarly fit into a category (one-horned) that described a perceived similarity that neglects other obvious differences.

[Zeitgeist]

I believe you are all making it more complicated than it is. Joseph Smith in the statement I provided says he read the text from the stone. He attributes, the stone provided the transaltion by the power of God. He says he did the translation by menas of the Urim and Thummin. The statements I provided link the Urmin and Thummin to actually being his seer stone. I recommend Van Wagoner's and Walker's excellent article to see this more in detail.

The 'lore' effect Brant suggests is not that significant to our discussion. Many of the statements come from those involved in the "translation" as scribesa nd witnesses to the process. They surely asked, about the translation - Oliver Cowdery for example asks. See D&C 8 and 9. Second the repeatedness and insistance from Whitmer, who is very accurate in his other reports agrees with the statements. As they were there I would trust their statements over an objections you have brought up. Joseph provides Oliver with a description of the translation method in D&C. The stone is repeatedly mentioned as what he used to do these things. As Dan mentioned, Joseph is unable to translate when Harris switches stones on him. So the stone is a component. Joseph later replaces the stone as he himself becomes a Gazelem. (See Alma 37:23 and original verses of D&C where Joseph Smith is referred by this code name.) Is Joseph suggesting the stone is a training device? Interestingly to Oliver Cowdery the Lord tells him his gift is with the rod. Not seer stones? Do have different uses in the treasure seeking world? One is a diviner (yes/no) the other a revelator of mysteries/darkness?

Joseph Smith use of the word 'translation' is not 'translation' as we typically use it. He claimed to be translating the Bible. We know he wasn't. He claimed to be translating the Book of Abraham, we know he was not. Especially in any sense we use the word. He didn't know the source languages in the first place. He attributes help to a stone. These are not very typical. Perhaps the lore is that the book was perfect as well as the 'translator' not the process it came about. Like Dan said, the liekly source for all this confusion is Joseph Smith himself. He said it was the most correct book, he gave the impression in the revelations, explanation of how the stone worked and didn't work and most of all by attribution to the power of God. In their word view could it be anything but perfect?

Zeitgeist

[Brant Gardner]

Zeitgeist:

I believe you are all making it more complicated than it is. Joseph Smith in the statement I provided says he read the text from the stone.

I went back to the statements to make sure I remembered them correctly. I did. Your statement is not correct. Joseph Smith never made this statement.

He attributes, the stone provided the transaltion by the power of God.

You are still interpreting. He said he used the translator(s) and that the translation was by power of God. He did not say that the "stone provided the translation."

He says he did the translation by menas of the Urim and Thummin.

This statement is correct.

The 'lore' effect Brant suggests is not that significant to our discussion. Many of the statements come from those involved in the "translation" as scribesa nd witnesses to the process. They surely asked, about the translation

Once again you are interpreting your data, not analyzing it. The really important statement is "surely the asked." The problem is, you provided several statements where other people asked Jospeh Smith and got a different answer. What is your support for assuming that he responded differently when he wasn't recorded than he did when he was?

At this point, you have misread or misremembered Joseph's statements, overreached the data on one of them, and now suppose that your assumption of what must have happened is the only possible explanation for the data.

That is a stack of assumptions on which to build any argument, particularly when those assumptions are countered by other data.

Oliver Cowdery for example asks. See D&C 8 and 9.

Which should be your first clue that reading off the stone wasn't the method - since Oliver tries to translate and can't do it. There was some expectation that he could, and something is described as the reason he couldn't. The reason had nothing to do with his eyesight.

So - we again have the data stacking up against your interpretation.

Second the repeatedness and insistance from Whitmer, who is very accurate in his other reports agrees with the statements.

That is where I have a problem with the interpretation that you and Dan are placing on these statements. You are accepting them as though they were entirely witness statements even when some of the information could not have been witnessed. I also believe that you are missing the nature of the consistencies and inconsistencies which, added to the late date, suggest to me that they are the result of the communal lore rather than the witness statements. Remember that they both contradict direct statements from Joseph Smith (who was always vague) and the evidence of Oliver Cowdery and the Original manuscript.

The stone is repeatedly mentioned as what he used to do these things.

Surely you don't think this point is in question? Joseph obviously understood that the stone or the Urim and Thummin were part of the process.

The problem isn't whether or not the stone was part of the process but what that process was. Saying that the stone was there doesn't describe the translation process. See Ben's comment on that topic.

Joseph Smith use of the word 'translation' is not 'translation' as we typically use it.

Agreed. See Nibley on that subject in the introductory materials to the Joseph Smith Papyri.

He said it was the most correct book, he gave the impression in the revelations, explanation of how the stone worked and didn't work and most of all by attribution to the power of God. In their word view could it be anything but perfect?

I am not sure what you mean by the above. I can assure you that his concept of "perfect" isn't what people attribute to that statement. Grammar was certainly not intended - what was intended was the phrase that follows that one but gets conveniently cut off.

As for the way people understood the text, you are back in the realm of the lore community that you don't seem to think is relevant.

[USU78]

Yet transliterated words like deseret, cumom, and curelom violate a conceptual method of translation.

Yet those three examples come from one record: Ether's, as translated by Moroni. Neither Mormon's nor Nephi 1's fingerprints are on that particular piece. Assuming multiple authorship as I do, I can easily account for the differences in treatment of unfamiliar animals (assuming absense of equus in Mezoamerica at the right time, as I don't necessarily do) by different authors.

[Zeitgeist]

Brant:

1. Joseph does indeed say he translated with the Urim and Thummim (you agree with this), through a means of reading the text. What did the stone do, whisper it to him? Even if it did whisper it the result is the same - someone/thing is telling him what to say/write. He for sure never claims that he wrote the text (which may mean nothing I conceed) by claims that the power of God or spirit (D&C) was directing him. Moreover, the other sources from those involved in the process of bring the Book of Mormon to print further buttress this interpretation.

2. He could not translate without the stone. If not this begs questions? Why couldn't he do it when the stone is switched? Why preserve the stone in the first place? Why all the statements otherwise? Why make such a big deal over the stone? Why do the prophets in the Book of Mormon make such a big deal over the sonte? Etc.

3. What difference in the statements can you find Brant? And more importantly what significance do these differences have on what it tells us about the translation process? I believe that Van Wagoner's article accounts for all the differences you can find.

4. Oliver is told that he supposed wrongly to think he could just use the stone (or read it). He is told he needs the gift and power of god to be with him. Yet, this does not say Joseph is not reading from the stone as everyone seems to suggest. You think they just made this up? All of them? Why? This is what I am talking about, lore doesn't make sense given their uniformity, proximity to Joseph, and time and place separating the statements. Not too mention they are all said to be firm believers and faithful truthtellers. Whitmer in particular goes to lengths to ensure the accuracy of his statements. I see no data stacking against my interpretation.

5. Oliver Cowdery himself does not contradict anyone - he just not elaborate. I would refer you to the previous things I was saying. I agree the text does not support anyone's views, but it certainly doesn't contradict what they believed was going on as told by their statements. If you do not believe them and think they are just lying why not other statements like handling the plates, seeing angels, etc. It seems like you are picking and choosing evidence. You seem like you want to make the text stand on its own, regardless of the history surrounding the text. We have a history of the text that cannot be ignored. I agree if we knew nothing about the text's history then your methods would be sound. But we just didn't find this text out of nowhere.

Zeitgeiest

[Brant Gardner]

Zeitgeist:

1. Joseph does indeed say he translated with the Urim and Thummim (you agree with this),

Both statements are correct.

through a means of reading the text.

And we are back to your interpretation/assumption rather than anything that Joseph said. He did not say this. Twice now you have asserted that he did. Please provide the statement.

What did the stone do, whisper it to him?

Do you find that a better or worse hypothesis? Since Joseph never said, we don't know. We know that the stone was involved - we don't know how. You keep leaping to the conclusion that he read the text off the stone. Joseph didn't say that and I believe there is evidence that strongly suggests that something else happened.

I will categorically state that I know of no natural way for a stone to represent writing. Do you disagree with that statement?

Even if it did whisper it the result is the same - someone/thing is telling him what to say/write.

We are getting closer. Joseph says that God was involved. Whether God told him what to write or inspired him to write or gave him ideas to write or painted pictures he should write - Joseph didn't say. That is, by the way, the reason that the translation method should be the result of research based on data - not on assumptions of what must have happened.

He could not translate without the stone.

That is true for the Book of Mormon. It appears not to be true for later revelations. More data--certainly not conclusions.

What difference in the statements can you find Brant?

That is the subject of a paper-length essay, not a discussion here.

Regardless of the evidence I see for extrapolation in the lore community, how do you jump from Joseph's statements that are consistently vague and the "witness" statements that seem to be very precise - but precise on a point that they could not have seen? Why don't they agree with Joseph? If you premise is that Joseph told them this information, why does the data contradict every other statement by Joseph Smith?

And more importantly what significance do these differences have on what it tells us about the translation process?

I tells us that when the witnesses talk about "reading" they got their information from some source other than Joseph and hence we cannot blithely rely upon those statements to discuss how the translation was done.

Oliver is told that he supposed wrongly to think he could just use the stone (or read it). He is told he needs the gift and power of god to be with him.

No. He is told that he approached the task wrongly, He thought it would be as simple as reading, but was told that he had to "study it out." That is significantly different from reading. So we have two people who translated or attempted to translate. One is vague and never mentions reading. One didn't succeed, but didn't succeed because it was not as simple as reading.

The evidence contradicts the facile assumption that the text was read from the stone. Your conclusions are incorrect.

Yet, this does not say Joseph is not reading from the stone as everyone seems to suggest.

Fascinating. I am really interested this logic.

You think they just made this up? All of them? Why? This is what I am talking about, lore doesn't make sense given their uniformity, proximity to Joseph, and time and place separating the statements.

So we are back to the witness statements. They have to be correct because you say they must be correct. You assume that Joseph told them - but you can't find a way to reconcile their statements with those known to come from Joseph Smith. You can't reconcile what they say with what Oliver says - who is the only one who tried other than Joseph and the only real information we have about the process.

In other words, you are going to stick by your reading of the data in spite of strong contradictory data and do so on the basis that you can't see any other way.

I can. I'm sorry your imagination is limited to that one possibility. The limitation of your imagination does not constitute proof that your reading must be correct.

Frankly, I prefer to go where the data lead rather than try to lead the data into the only conclusion I can imagine.

Not too mention they are all said to be firm believers and faithful truthtellers. Whitmer in particular goes to lengths to ensure the accuracy of his statements.

Good. Then you are willing to accept his testimony and accept the Book of Mormon as true, just as he did. If you are going to believe him, I think you should believe him.

I see no data stacking against my interpretation.

Obviously. Pardon me if I do not share that limitation.

You seem like you want to make the text stand on its own, regardless of the history surrounding the text. We have a history of the text that cannot be ignored. I agree if we knew nothing about the text's history then your methods would be sound. But we just didn't find this text out of nowhere.

Wait. Are you saying that because the Book of Mormon claims to be an ancient record that was translated, and you don't believe that it could have happened, that therefore it is impossible for the text to be ancient?

Are you saying that the text for antiquity is to ignore antiquity and concentrate on the modern conditions of its production - which you have already decided cannot lead to a historical text?

Can you explain how that methodology can produce anything except a biased report?

[Dan Vogel]

Brant,

Of course. However, if we first determine that it really is a translation then we need to know whether or not their reports tell us anything about the method. They don't. Since you don't believe there was a translation, you also agree that they don't tell us how the translation was done. How odd that we agree and you are trying to make it seem like there is a disagreement.

It is easier determining what JS told his followers about the translation than it is to speculate from an English text what the translation might have been, which seems like a pointless exercise to me anyway.

The statements tell us that JS saw the translation in the stone and read it off. Any notion that JS worked out the translation in his mind is not supported in any source that I know of (see my discussion of D&C 9 below). So I don

[Brant Gardner]

Dan:

I had a longer, point-by-point discussion written, but when I got near the end I realized that we see the world so differently that we will never agree. More than just the question of the Book of Mormon, we understand history in dramatically different ways.

[Confidential Informant]

I find this discussion fascinating and I've enjoyed it. However, it seems to be missing a (or intentially drawing us away from) one of Brant's valid points. If the Book of Mormon is a "translation" of a work, the original of which no longer exists, there are methods that are used to determine the validity of that claim. As I recall, Brant even gave an example of an extant work that matches this description.

Brant has also shown, using nothing more than the tools and methods used by those in the profession, that the Book of Mormon behaves almost exactly as a translated text should. See Brant Gardener, The Case for Historicity; Brant Gardener, A Social History of the Early Nephites; Brant Gardener, The Gadianton Robbers in Mormon's Theological History

The point of all this back and forth over the exact method of translation seems, to me at least, to be an attempt to avoid dealing with the data Brant has analyzed by denying that the Book of Mormon could ever operate as a normal translation should, such as that referred to previously. The result of this is, of course, to deny Brant the ability to confront the Book of Mormon from a standard scientific/academic/scholarly perspective.

I find this to be disturbing because it smacks to me of a methodology that some on another list have accused LDS apologists of: Crying "angel" when the questions get too tough (i.e. citing to a supernatural power or source to explain away difficult facts).

Here, it appears to me that Brant has done exactly what many critics have demanded should be done, that is subject to the Book of Mormon to rigourous scholarly standards. Having done so, the critics now appear to decry his doing so since his findings fail to account for an asserted supernatural influence on the translation process. In other words, he won't account for the angel.

However, I fail to see how this critique is valid or helpful. First, the Book of Mormon is the only example of divinely translated literature that I am aware of. Thus, how can we know exactly how a divine translation is supposed to behave? Second, where is the evidence that a "divine" translation will behave in a manner different from a non-divinely inspired translation?

That being the case, it seems that Brant is placed in an impossible position: Sciene simply cannot account for supernatural influences but the critics demand that Brant do so nonetheless. Thus, when Brant fronts an explanation for some perceived anacronism in the Book of Mormon that, in any other (see non-LDS) context would be completely satisfactory and in compliance with the known workings of other translations, he is bombarded by naysayers who insist that such translational artifacts simply cannot exist in this particular work. And why? Because this translation was "divinely" aided. But as noted, there is no basis for this assertion since no one can say how a divine translation is supposed to work.

So, whille I find this conversation fascinating, it occurs to me that, at some point, someone needs to interact with the fact that the book does indeed appear to behave exactly as any other translation should and explain how that can be the case if it is not a translation at all.

C.I.

[Zeitgeist]

Brant,

Here are some statements by Cowdery that are specific to the method of the stone and it's operation in the translation - he does support the other witness statements:

1. Oliver Cowdery Interview with Josiah Jones, 1830.

"In the last part of October, 1830, four men appeared here by the names of Cowdery, Pratt, Whitmer, and Peterson; they stated they were from Palmyra, Ontario County, N.Y. with a book, which they said contained what was engraven on gold plates found in a stone box, in the ground in the town of Manchester, Ontario Co., N.Y., and was found about three years ago by a man named Joseph Smith Jr. who had translated it by looking into a stone or two stones, when put into a dark place, which stones he said were found in the box with the plates. They affirmed while he looked through the stone spectacles another sat by and wrote what he told them, and thus the book was all written. . . A few days after these men appeared again, a few of us went to see them and Cowdery was requested to state how the plates were found, which he did. He stated that Smith looked onto or through the transparent stones to translate what was on the plates. I then asked him if he had ever looked through the stones to see what he could see in them; his reply was that he was not permitted to look into them. I asked who debarred him from looking into them; he remained sometime in silence, then said that he has so much confidence in his friend Smith, who told him tht he must not look into them, that he did not presume to do so lest he should tempt God and be struck dead. (Josiah Jones, "History of the Mormonites," The Evangelist 9 (1 June 1841): 134-35.)

Dan I agree with you I erred to think he used the stones in relation to D&C 8. I assumed it because the rod is usually a yes/no. But this statement by Cowdery suggests otherwise. I think you are right. Thanks for the attention to this detail. If memory serves me, I remember that Harris gave Anthon a similar impression about being struck dead those who looked at the plates without permission? I will have to look it up, I am not around my books.

2. Council Bluffs Iowa Testimony, 21 October 1848.

"I wrote with my own pen the entire book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the prophet, As he translated by the gift and power of god, By means of the urim and thummim, or as it is called by that book holy interpreters."

(Reuben Miller Journal, 21 October 1848)

3. Oliver Cowdery Interview with Samuel W. Richards, January 1849

"I was surprised to see the bright recollection he seemed to have of his early experience with the prophet Joseph, especially in relating to the translation of the Book of Mormon, some of which I will here relate. He represents Joseph as sitting by a table with the plates before him, and he reading the Urim and Thummim. Oliver, his scribe, sits close beside to hear and write every word as translated. This is done by holding the translators over the words of the written record, and the translation appears distinctly in the instrument, which had been touched by the finger of God and dedicated and consecrated for the express purpose of translating languages. This instrument now used fully performed its Mission. Every word was made distinctly visible even to every letter, and if Oliver did not in writing spell the word correctly it remained in the translator until it was written correctly. This was the Mystery to Oliver, how Joseph being compar[a]tively ignorant could correct him in spelling without seeing the word written, and he would not be satisfied until he should be permitted to have the gift to translate as well as Joseph. To satisfy Oliver, Joseph with him went to the Lord in prayer until Oliver had the gift by which he could translate, adn by so doing learned how it was that Joseph could correct him even in the spelling of words." (Samuel W. Richards, Statement, 21 May 1907, Samuel W. Richards Papers, LDS Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

The manuscript may actually bear some fruit of the descriptions that the witnesses give. For instance Royal Skousen says sometimes a scribe would attempt to erase a misspelled letter, but more typically the correct letter would simply be written over the incorrect letter. The original manuscript has very few corrections at all as well as no puncuation. This may support what the witnesses say Joseph was reading it from off or in the stones. And may also point to a word for word translation as Skousen suggests. The view that the wording was particular can be supported by the insistance that nothing be changed when first taking it to be printed. Care was taken, but human mistakes were made of course. Skousen concentrates on instances of spelling errors that can be interpreted as mishearing a spoken word, for example, hearing "an" as "and," or "reed" as "weed," or "beat" as "meet," or "them" (pronounced as unstressed "em") as "him." Skousen writes: "Errors in the original manuscript (O) are based on the scribe mishearing what Joseph Smith dictated rather then visually misreading while copying from another manuscript" (Skousen 1997, 67). On the other hand, Skousen gives examples of changes made in the printer's manuscript (P), which he claims are due to visual misreading of the original manuscript (O) rather than mishearing. He states, "(a) The original manuscript supports the hypothesis that the text was given to Joseph Smith word-for-word and that he could see the spelling of the names (in support of what witnesses of the translation process claimed about Joseph's translation)." See http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php?p=1439

I am wondering if might change a little of your views Brant? Maybe not. That is fine, I just thought I would add a little more to the stew. You asked: "I will categorically state that I know of no natural way for a stone to represent writing. Do you disagree with that statement?" Not at all. But I didn't claim that I could translate with a stone either, Joseph did. Do you believe him or not?

I have no trouble reconciling any of the statements. I do not see anything contradictory really going all. It has some details that are puzzling, but in context and account of personality and where they are coming from with their beliefs nothing is at all suggestive that they are contradicting each other, this includes Joseph.

C.I.: I am sorry you do not see this as a valuable expercise. The exploration of the history of the text trumps assuming the text. Brant has the right idea if we just discover a text and know nothing about it. Especially in translated materials. However this situation is different. We have the translator and scribes on record. We have surrounding context that bears significant and impressive on how should handle the text in the first place. I suggest that Brant's methodology, while sound, is not entirely relevant to the case of the Book of Mormon. But I understand Brant and think he makes some intelligent attempts to discover the text. The is amiable and noteworthy. I am impressed with his attention to detail within the text and he makes the best attempts I have seen, including over Sorenson and Nibley. This said I see him ignoring the historical background of the background of the text, the external nature of the text too lightly and perhaps dismissively. He assumes too much this way. This said, I think we are hitting upon an important aspect in which to come to some judgements on the Book of Mormon. Both enterprises are not without some gain. Waht do you make of the statements made by those involved in bringing forth the Book of Mormon? Do you find them relevant? If not why?

Zeitgeist

[Brant Gardner]

Zeitgeist:

I am surprised by the statements you added. It seems that you think there is some disagreement about whether or not the urim and thummin or the seer stone were part of the process. That isn't in quesiton at all. The issue is how the process worked. I am at a loss to see how those statements support reading text from the stone. For instance, here is the full description of the "method" directly from your first statement from Oliver Cowdery: "translated it by looking into a stone or two stones, when put into a dark place."

That tells us exactly what we already knew, but absolutley nothing about what happened when Joseph looked into a stone in a dark place. Frankly, that immediately tells me that we can't assume the obvious since the normal means of seeing requires light. The descriptions of the process all contain problems. It is easy to dismiss them as wrong because they don't fit our assumptions (even when our assumptions are based on what we perceive to be science).

The problem is still the text itself. If it is a translation then we have to discern the translation method. No witness statement covers all of the evidence adequately and if it is a translation then we must account for all of the data.

If you dismiss the text as a translation, then it wasn't - and discussing how something was done that wasn't is a futile enterprise.

[Brant Gardner]

Dan:

There is a section of what you posted that I just can't leave without a comment.

If it worked, why didn

[Tarski]

All of this makes me wonder why an all powerful God wouldn't just hand JS the translated text. Why the occult methods? People still gaze into crystal balls these days but who takes that stuff seriously?

[Tarski]

All of that sounds like a modern writer attempting to explain what cannot be explained. The historical problem is that there were a large number of people who really did believe that these things worked. While that doesn't fit very well with our current concepts of how the world works, it did for them.

Yikes! You saying that the occult methods did work? If so, that goes a long way toward explaining why you believe the supernatural version of the events.

[USU78]

Dan states:

The statements tell us that JS saw the translation in the stone and read it off. Any notion that JS worked out the translation in his mind is not supported in any source that I know of (see my discussion of D&C 9 below). So I don

[Confidential Informant]

C.I.: I am sorry you do not see this as a valuable expercise.

Oh, I don't believe I said that. Indeed, I find it fascinating, but as I said, I think it also serves as a distraction almost to the point of being a strawman. No one really wants to deal directly with what Brant has produced, so they dismiss it based on how they "think" a divinely inspired text should behave. You argue incessantly that that Smith "read" the translation from the stone and your implicit assumption is that, if that is the case, then the translation should be very nearly "perfect." (I.e. no anacronism, etc.) Nevertheless, I see this as a strawman since no one knows exactly how a divinely inspired translatin might behave and all claims that it might behave differently than a "normal" translation are simply assumptions based on fundamentalistic notions of the divine.

The exploration of the history of the text trumps assuming the text.

Says who? Can you cite me any single ethnohistorian that would agree with your statement? What I find so interesting here is that neither you nor Dan actually believes that Smith "translated" anything. Thus, in my mind, this whole argument about whether he was simply a reader or whether he was more involved in the process is silly, because you don't really believe there was a process. So, again the arguments you front boil down fundamentalistic assertions of how a theoretical divinely inspired text should operate.

It appears to me that people who reject Smith as a translator are made supremely uncomfortable by the fact that the text that he produced appears to behave exactly as a purported translation should. Since they cannot interact with that fact, they instead turn to the old standy: cry angel and say that there is no way the text should behave as a "normal" translation because it wasn't a "normal" translation but a "supernatural" one and thus all the assumptions that ethohistorians make about ancient texts are invalid. I simply see no basis for that assertion.

Brant has the right idea if we just discover a text and know nothing about it. Especially in translated materials.

So are you admitting that his methodology is fundamentally sound (assuming arguendo that the text was just a "discovered" text with not known history?). If so I commend you, most who have interacted w/ Brant on this issue wouldn't even grant him that much.

However this situation is different. We have the translator and scribes on record.

Not quite. As Brant has noted we have very little from the translator himself.

We have surrounding context that bears significant and impressive on how should handle the text in the first place.

I just curious as to what authority you cite for this assertion. To me it smacks of an attempt to avoid dealing with the real issue: that this text is behaving exactly as a translation of an ancient text should. In my mind, that fact should control our view of how the translation process proceeded, not vice versa. In other words, the very fact that the text is acting just like a translation should tells how the translation process happened, not the other way around.

I suggest that Brant's methodology, while sound, is not entirely relevant to the case of the Book of Mormon.

As I noted,the mere fact that you can admit the soundness of his approach is a giant step forward. Nevertheless, I think you reticence to apply it to the Book of Mormon is more a function of your absolute belief in Smith as author, not translator. All assertions that the history of the text's production are relevant are, in my mind, based on individual suppositions of how God would produce a text and are, at their heart, fundamentalistic and inerrantist in their underlying assumptions.

But I understand Brant and think he makes some intelligent attempts to discover the text. The is amiable and noteworthy. I am impressed with his attention to detail within the text and he makes the best attempts I have seen, including over Sorenson and Nibley.

I'm sure Brant is pleased by your priase and to be placed in such company. I would certainly place him that company also.

This said I see him ignoring the historical background of the background of the text, the external nature of the text too lightly and perhaps dismissively. He assumes too much this way.

But what else can he do? You are talking about supernatural elements which, by their nature, are untestable and unprovable. The only way we can approach the text is in the very manner that Brant has: by treating it as we would any other text. The historical background is interesting and informative but as this thread has shown, ultimately up for debate. The fact that the text is behaving as a normal translation would should control how we view the historical background and statements about the translation process, not the other way around.

This said, I think we are hitting upon an important aspect in which to come to some judgements on the Book of Mormon. Both enterprises are not without some gain.

I agree. In fact, when Dan V., first arrived I this list I was highly critical of him to the point of meanness. He has since tempered me a bit with his approach. I still diagree with him vehemently on most topics but his knowledge is valuable in a discussion like this.

Waht do you make of the statements made by those involved in bringing forth the Book of Mormon? Do you find them relevant? If not why?

Yes, I find them relevant but only to a degree because, as I've stated, I think the fact that the text operates as a translation of an ancient work should informs us more about the translation process than the statements of those who tried to expalin it to us. I think that fact trumps the statements of those who never actually translated.

C.I.

[Brant Gardner]

Tarski:

All of this makes me wonder why an all powerful God wouldn't just hand JS the translated text.

(from the next post)

Yikes! You saying that the occult methods did work? If so, that goes a long way toward explaining why you believe the supernatural version of the events.

Sounds like you need to read a little more history and anthropology. Starting with religious history, you might notice that there is never any indication that God speaks to man in ways that are foreign to his perceptions or expectations. Why did God speak through a burning bush? There was a cultural predisposition to accept that as a sign of divine communication. If you don't believe in divine communication at all you still must understand that all people who have, have understood that communication in their own cultural terms.

Why the "occult?" Because it wasn't occult (hidden) at the time. It was a normal procedure and fit expectations. It actually functioned as a mode of "proof" of the experience because it fit into the categories that were expected for proofs of such experiences.

Concerning my believe that magic works - I suggest you read more anthropology. Of course it works. One of the strangest things about magic is that it always works. When it doesn't seem to work, it is because some stronger magic prevented it. It is an entire worldview. If you read anthropology - and then history - you will find that such "magical" procedures have been accepted as working for millenia.

Do I believe them to be scientific? No. Do I think that we can create some scientific explanation for them? Sometimes. Sometimes I suspect that coincidence foils any other rational explanation.

The problem is that when we apply our modern perspective to the ancient world and expect to explain the ancient world only in terms of our modern perceptions we inherently distort their experiences. We take things that they accepted as evidence of the goodness of the world and turn them into charlatanry - as Dan suggested.

[Brant Gardner]

Confidential Informant:

But what else can he do? You are talking about supernatural elements which, by their nature, are untestable and unprovable. The only way we can approach the text is in the very manner that Brant has: by treating it as we would any other text. The historical background is interesting and informative but as this thread has shown, ultimately up for debate.

Here is what I find ironic.

I suggest that the text be put to the same test as any other document and that the evidence of what it is should tell us something about who wrote it.

Dan and Zeitgeist suggest that since we "know" that it was written by supernatural means that perforce dictates that we can assume that the text cannot be ancient. Therefore we are free to explain it by the historical context in which it was obviously created.

Given those two hypotheses, I am amazed that Dan and Zeitgeist seem to think that mine is riddled with assumptions and theirs is more "scientific." Their methodology already knows the end so well that they don't really need to deal with the text at all. Zeitgeist can insist that the historical milieu of its publication is sufficient to know all we need to know about it.

I find that amazing. I wouldn't wish that method on any other text. I can't imagine how a methodology that is specifically designed for a single text can be assumed to have any objectivism.

If I were to create a test procedure for the Book of Mormon that was designed from the beginning to prove that it was divine I would expect that there should be cries of faulty methodology - and they would be right. I wonder why the same principle does not apply to a test case that does the very same thing except starting from the opposite assumption. Poor methodology is poor methodology. Any method that is crafted to support an assumption rather than test the assumption falls short of academic rigor.

For example, what might I find if I attempt to see the text in a historical context? I could find that it doesn't fit - that cultural data don't match. I could find that the events listed in the text don't fit with the known events fo the time and place. For instance, I might find that there were no wars, only inter-tribal raids more appropriate to the Plains Indians. I might find that no one lived in the place at the right time. I might find that there was no geography that matched - or that the geography prevented the described action in the text. There are any number of things that I could find that would indicate that my hypothesis was incorrect.

Now attempt the same thing for Dan and Zeitgeist. What could possibly alter their initial assumption? What data could they find that would change their minds? They might find witnesses who say that they saw the plates. Since they "know" that this couldn't have happened, they will have another explanation for witnesses. Name any point, and their initial assumption overrides the data and forces it into the preconstructed analytical scheme. There is simply no way that the methodology can produce any result other than the one that drives the model.

Why do I think that the text is a translation? Because the text itself fits with a time and place in ways that are non-obvious, non-random, and complex. They are beyond coincidence. For any other text I would have an extremely solid case. The only reason that anyone might doubt is that this particular text has a connection to a divine element that is out of favor academically and scientifically. So we have Zeitgeist supposing that by examining the actual text instead of the history of the modern production of the text that I am missing important information? What information? Precisely that which the text was designed to demonstrate - that there is a divine hand at work, or conversely, that which Zeitgeist and Dan presume to be the obvious point of dismissal, that it claims to have a divine hand at work.

[Zeitgeist]

Brant what about the third statement from Oliver Cowdery. He seems to support my view, here it is again:

3. Oliver Cowdery Interview with Samuel W. Richards, January 1849

"I was surprised to see the bright recollection he seemed to have of his early experience with the prophet Joseph, especially in relating to the translation of the Book of Mormon, some of which I will here relate. He represents Joseph as sitting by a table with the plates before him, and he reading the Urim and Thummim. Oliver, his scribe, sits close beside to hear and write every word as translated. This is done by holding the translators over the words of the written record, and the translation appears distinctly in the instrument, which had been touched by the finger of God and dedicated and consecrated for the express purpose of translating languages. This instrument now used fully performed its Mission. Every word was made distinctly visible even to every letter, and if Oliver did not in writing spell the word correctly it remained in the translator until it was written correctly. This was the Mystery to Oliver, how Joseph being compar[a]tively ignorant could correct him in spelling without seeing the word written, and he would not be satisfied until he should be permitted to have the gift to translate as well as Joseph. To satisfy Oliver, Joseph with him went to the Lord in prayer until Oliver had the gift by which he could translate, adn by so doing learned how it was that Joseph could correct him even in the spelling of words." (Samuel W. Richards, Statement, 21 May 1907, Samuel W. Richards Papers, LDS Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

Also wondering what you think of Skousen's opinion and my thoughts on the original manuscript as supporting the word for word translation as mentioned by the witnesses.

C.I.: I am not ignoring Brant's article. I explained I why I did not feel it applied, despite it's very good attempt. I think he reads wht he wants to into the text a little as well to make it fit. (I would welcome you to critically examine Brants list of assumption filled Ammon pieces that he says do not make sense to the text. Try to come up with a list of your own without thinking Maya.) I actually am working on a rebuttal on Brant's views, which will show why the Mayan's are not the best fit for a LGT and offer an alternate explantions for Brants list of things that do not make sense. Of course the simplest argument about why the elements that Brant lists as part of the Ammon story do not make sense is because Joseph made up a very fantastic tale that matched his view of American Indian culture and life as he viewed it. This said, alternative accounts are possible and can just as easily explain a number of parts of the story Brant has difficulty with. This I think would derail the thread here. I welcome you starting another thread regarding Brant's articles.

Zeitgeist

[Tarski]

Concerning my believe that magic works - I suggest you read more anthropology. Of course it works. One of the strangest things about magic is that it always works. When it doesn't seem to work, it is because some stronger magic prevented it. It is an entire worldview.

Sounds like you have been reading Paul Feyerabend's stuff.

Did the magic that determined who was a witch in Salem actual work?

...

you might notice that there is never any indication that God speaks to man in ways that are foreign to his perceptions or expectations.

What does this suggest? That the origin of these stories was in the human imagination. Why would God have to behave according to human expectation? Perhaps because it is all in the imagination in the first place.

If you read anthropology - and then history - you will find that such "magical" procedures have been accepted as working for millenia.

Reading anthropology only gives me reason to think that people thought that magic worked, not that it actually did work. Do you think that every world view was correct in its time? Did the dog headed men thought to inhabit the island of Andamanin in the middle ages actually exist?

[Corky Wallace]

Brandt Gardner said:

The problem is that when we apply our modern perspective to the ancient world and expect to explain the ancient world only in terms of our modern perceptions we inherently distort their experiences. We take things that they accepted as evidence of the goodness of the world and turn them into charlatanry - as Dan suggested.

I very much agree with this statement, in general. The problem that arises (and the inevitable objection I hear from the "no-moral relativism!" crowd) is looking at some of the more questionable practices of peoples.

- pre-contact Polynesian cultures employed both slavery & human sacrifice in their rituals. Is it possible that God not only allowed these activities but sanctioned them (through continuing revelation/communication with the "offenders")?

- this seems to open the door for the possibility that New Guinean cannibals could likewise have close relationships with the Lord, even though they were killing & eating others in the process of their worship.

- Really, who is to say the Heaven's Gate group did not likewise have a legitimate relationship with the Almighty?

- Charles Manson? (Given the numbers & diversity of people involved, I hope the possibility that some visions/revelations/communications between Deity & Man have had a mental illness component to them is not being discounted out of hand.)

I'm not belittling your point - like I said, I see the world in a relativist way - I'm just posing other scenarios to challenge your (apparent) assertion that the Lord does indeed communicate with people in different ways & is understood (sometimes quite) differently, depending on the person, culture, language, etc.