Book of Mormon "Horses"

[Tarski]

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.

I just have to come back to this. I am actually stunned. Is this the "studied irrationalism" I have been hearing about. Are you suggesting that if I read more anthropology I would be a believer? I have read a lot of anthropology and history.

There are plenty of anthropologists and historians that are atheist. Most educated people believe the superstitions of the past came from the human imagination in response to events that had no rational explanation at the time. Using science we really are overcomming the darkness of the past.

There is a book I think you should look at called "Higher Superstition"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/080...7843113-3347228

[Zeitgeist]

Brant,

You write: 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.

I would agree, and sometimes that requires looking at the text's historical production, which you seem to think bears no fruit on making a judgement on the book. I suggest that this historical look (I'm not claiming scientific, that is your word not mine) at the Book of Mormon production casts huge doubt as to the text being anything more than fiction.

Let's look at some of the assumptions required for your view:

1. The text is not ficiton.

2. The production by means of the power of God and a rock, the same rock mind you that he uses to track down treasures, before he is suppossed to been delivered the means in the box on the hill.

3. That Joseph is missinterpreting the location and identity of the Lamanites.

4. Anachronistic details in the text are explainable by assuming the text is not fiction. (Cart before the horse)

5. All the people involved in the translation, who agree on all major points disagree with Joseph on the method of the translation with the stone, or that all witnesses are affected by lore rather than the facts.

6. Joseph has nothing to say, so the witnesses could not get their information from him.

7. Joseph Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon.

8. 19th century elements are not in the book, despite the fact that you want to put 19th century Joseph Smith's understanding and translation in the book, despite the statements of the witnesses.

9. Supernatural explanations, denying that any natural explanation when it doesn't support your view, denying the supernatural claims made by it's translators when it doesn't support your view and trying to adhere to a naturalistic explanation. Why not go with the whole naturalistic explanation?

I can't speak for Dan, but I agree that I have to make some assumptions (all historical evidence will require some logical inference, but they hardly seem the leaps and assumption that you are asking me to make. I do not see you making your argument that your's is more or less scientific, so I ask that you do not misinterpret my arguments against you. I argue that you are misapplying your methods by too easily dismissing the historical process of making the book and the background this casts on the book in the first place. Call it meta-Brant's method for lack of a better term.

You write: "Zeitgeist can insist that the historical milieu of its publication is sufficient to know all we need to know about it."

Given my explanations I am surprised that you find this troubling. Furthermore, you are misrepresenting my view by omission. I have considered the text of the Book of Mormon. Like I said before in conversations with you. I used to believe in it. I have read it as a believer 25+ times and as a nonbeliever additional times. I have looked at it from every angle I have come across. Including yours.

You write: "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."

May I suggest you look at the objectivity I am trying to use. I am not looking for the perfect objectivity method. I am looking for one that makes the most sense and settling for the one that jives with my experience. I am confused by your "objectivity." Are the Michigan relics to be treated as authentic? How about the Kinderhook plates? How about the JOseph Smith papyri? Do you hold these artifacts in the same manner as the Book of Mormon? How about Homer's Iliad? Do you try to support the supernatural parts of his story? Why not? We do not have his original text, we only have translations. You wouldn't ignore the historical production of these texts? Nor would you ignore applying these texts to what you have experienced and understand.

You write: "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."

I agree with you. Unfortunate for your position is that naturalism has support, is open to all, and can be repeated with the same results under the same circumstances. Hence it is the only objective method out there. Historical method of course falls short of this, but when naturalistic explanation is applied it helps make inferences. These inferences find support in the fact that naturalism hasn't and cannot be refutted in an objective manner. Naturalistic explanations are only modified by other naturalistic explanations. You yourself attempt to use naturalism in many of your arguments to explain something claimed to be supernatural or only know by supernatural means. (i.e. the production of the Book of Mormon and answers from God that it is true.) Correct me if I am wrong, I am not saying I have it all figured out - it is just an observation.

You write: "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."

I agree with many of the things you state here, if I assumed that the geography matched, the cultural data matched, etc. But these are assumptions and ignore the things that do not fit, such as horses, steel, and a host of other anachronistic material items, cultural neglects, as well as the missing links like identification of anything resembling specific people or events in the Book of Mormon to the Mayans or any group of known people. I know you see otherwise, but I feel it important to explain why I atleast, do think your point well taken.

You write: "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."

I cannot speak for Dan, but I respond: My mind can be changed with experience with God and the supernatural. As for witnesses seeing the plates, I find their statements contrary. Again this is another topic, but examination of the statements do not reflect highly and most certainly not so certain as to what they saw and felt. I encourage you to look at all the statements available, not jut the ones that Backman or Anderson show. Furthermore, it again requires a magical world view that I have not yet been able to find support for.

Curious if you would answer my question: "Do you believe Joseph used a sonte to translate the Book of Mormon? Why or why not?"

Zeitgeist

[Brant Gardner]

Tarski:

I just have to come back to this. I am actually stunned. Are you suggesting that if I read more anthropology I would be a believer? I have read a lot of anthropology and history.

Not at all. I am suggesting that you might understand mankind better. You might recognize mankind for what it is rather than assume it has always operated the way you seem to think it does.

There are plenty of anthropologists and historians that are atheist. Most educated people believe the superstitions of the past came from the human imagination in response to events that had no rational explanation at the time. Using science we really are overcomming the darkness of the past.

And there is that same jigoistic scientism that doesn't understand the past. The "darkness" of the past led to the science of today. I find it remarkable that you are quite willing to assume your own cultural superiority over so many who have gone before and laid the foundations for what you believe. If you had really read much anthropology I would expect a much more tolerant approach to non-Western peoples.

Let's be clear that scientific explanations inherently differ from pre-scientific explanations. All that says is that if we approach the world from the assumption of a scientific perspective we are required to assume that pre-science was something - less than scientific. That forgets, however, that for the people at the time it actually worked.

One of the first lessons you should have learned as you began reading anthropology is that we better understand people if we accept that their world "works" even when it differs from ours. Comprehension comes more often through understanding than judging.

There is a world of difference between discussing what people understood to be real and describing them as dupes of charlatanry. The first can actually start to explain their behavior. The second places them at a level where we can never understand them because we certainly wouldn't be fooled in such a way. Those are very different approaches to history and neither really says anything about scientific reality - only the way we use our science to judge other people.

[Brant Gardner]

Tarski:

Reading anthropology only gives me reason to think that people thought that magic worked, not that it actually did work.

Now you are getting closer to the point. For the people who thought it worked, are you saying it didn't? Are you saying that they did not act or react to situations based on their belief that it worked? Are you suggesting that there was anything in human behavior was different simply because, from a scientific perspective, it did really work?

That is the difference. Scientifically magic doesn't work. However, in the realm of human experience, it not only worked sufficient to be the way people understood the world, it worked sufficiently well that they acted as though they did. When anthropologists insist that magic "works," that is the way that it works. It provides sufficient "evidence" that people believe in it and act in ways that assume it is as real as any science.

[Tarski]

That forgets, however, that for the people at the time it actually worked.

They just thought it worked. Its simple really.

Why not answer my question:

Did the magical methods used to determine who was or was not a witch really work?

Here is another.

Did astrology actually ever correctly predict personality types?

The reason we don't use these things anymore is exactly because we found out they don't really work.

[Tarski]

Tarski:

Reading anthropology only gives me reason to think that people thought that magic worked, not that it actually did work.

Now you are getting closer to the point. For the people who thought it worked, are you saying it didn't?

I am saying it did not work.

Are you saying that they did not act or react to situations based on their belief that it worked? Are you suggesting that there was anything in human behavior was different simply because, from a scientific perspective, it did really work?

That is the difference. Scientifically magic doesn't work.

It just didn't work. The people were wrong.

[Brant Gardner]

Zeitgeist:

(from a statement made in an interview with Oliver Cowdery):

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.

There is some textual support for this statement and it certainly is something to which Oliver can witness. That says that there was something that Joseph knew about spelling - but notice that it speaks to what Oliver is writing, not to what Joseph is "seeing." Oliver testifies that Joseph corrected spelling that Oliver had written. That is certainly interesting and amazing, but not really part of the translation. It is part of the dictation.

Is there any reason to be so precise with what the evidence says? If you really think that it is a translation then the answer is yes. If you don't think it is a translation then it is easier to accept the superficial meaning of such statements.

[Zeitgeist]

Brant you write: "There is some textual support for this statement and it certainly is something to which Oliver can witness. That says that there was something that Joseph knew about spelling - but notice that it speaks to what Oliver is writing, not to what Joseph is "seeing." Oliver testifies that Joseph corrected spelling that Oliver had written. That is certainly interesting and amazing, but not really part of the translation. It is part of the dictation."

you are forgetting:

"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 seems clear the Joseph is seeing something in the stone. This again is consistent with what others say, that the stone provides something from which Joseph is seeing. What is Joseph seeing? Everyone says a translation, or implies at the least a translation. I see nothing to suggest otherwise, nor does it even make sense. If not a translation, what? What are stones for? The text itself you cling to says they were for translation, in fact: Mosiah 8, 21, and 28, Alma 37, Mormon 9:34. Even Ether 4:5 speaks of them being important to the translation, so much so that they seem required. Particularly Mosiah 8:13 "Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can atranslate

[Brant Gardner]

Zeitgeist:

I would agree, and sometimes that requires looking at the text's historical production, which you seem to think bears no fruit on making a judgement on the book.

No, that isn't my position. My position is that everyone has to explain the historical production. The difference is that I don't know how to intepret it without first answering the fundamental question of the text itself. Since the historicity or ahistoricity of the text necessarily determines how one reads the historical data it is imperative to have that question correct before attempting the analysis of the historical situation.

I suggest that this historical look (I'm not claiming scientific, that is your word not mine) at the Book of Mormon production casts huge doubt as to the text being anything more than fiction.

That is too bad. I would hope that you would aspire to at least some standards espoused in the social sciences. If you assume that any kind of scientific view of the world is behind your analysis I would think it imperative that your methodology would be similarly directed by those principles.

NOTE: I am leaving these comments out of the quote boxes so it doesn't get too repetitions. I will clearly mark my interlinear responses:

Let's look at some of the assumptions required for your view:

1. The text is not ficiton.

[brant] Correct. Only with such an assumption can I test it against a historical time and place to determine whether or not it is fiction. If I start with the assumption that it is fiction, against what would I test it?

2. The production by means of the power of God and a rock, the same rock mind you that he uses to track down treasures, before he is suppossed to been delivered the means in the box on the hill.

[brant] This isn't an assumption. It is a description of what Joseph and others said happened. I don't assume it since I can't say anything about it until I have tested the result. Therefore I consider this a historical datum, but not an assumption used to test the hypothesis.

3. That Joseph is missinterpreting the location and identity of the Lamanites.

[brant] This is not an assumption. It is rather poorly stated result of the analysis of the text. Based on the internal evidence of the text it is clear that Joseph Smith did not understand his text in the same way that the text understands itself. This leads to his use of terms from the text in ways that the text would not. It also suggests that Joseph was not the author else his understanding of the terms ought to be determinative and the text should match his statements. Since there is evidence that the text is ancient and doesn't agree with Smith, the data suggest that a translation is the best explanation for Joseph's relationship with the text and its vocabulary.

4. Anachronistic details in the text are explainable by assuming the text is not fiction. (Cart before the horse)

[brant] Again, this isn't an assumption. Every theory has elements that appear to contradict the theory and any good theory better have a way to account for them. The first issue is to determine whether or not the putative anachronisms indicate that the text is not ancient. We are back to the original problem. One has to make that determination first. Why don't these anachronisms automatically disqualify the text as ancient? People forget that it claims to be a translation. Since it claims to be a translation and it is known and accepted that anachronisms can exist in the translation that do not represent the underlying text (see candles in the KJV as one example) then we must determine antiquity based on other data.

If it is not ancient, then the anachronisms stand. If it is ancient, however, then we need to explain how the ananchronisms were introduced into the translation if they were not present in the original. It is a very different process.

5. All the people involved in the translation, who agree on all major points disagree with Joseph on the method of the translation with the stone, or that all witnesses are affected by lore rather than the facts.

[brant] You are still confusing assumptions with conclusions. I don't assume this. When I examine the text I come to a determination of what it is. Based on that evidence I then need to fill in the explanation of other data said about the text. In that case I have to reconcile statements with data. As with any other historical enterprise of which I am aware, I have to reconcile witness statements against data - not the other way around. Were I in a modern situation where forensic evidence contradicted an eye witness, what ought to be my response? Even giving every benefit to the witness, data prevail. You wouldn't have it any other way, would you?

6. Joseph has nothing to say, so the witnesses could not get their information from him.

[brant] That is a funny statement. Again, this is not at all an assumption. Joseph did have a lot to say. Don't you think that we should assume that he meant what he said? Do you really expect that he said one thing in public and another in private - particularly when there is no evidence of that fact. Please see the way scholars interpret authorship of the Pauline letters. Much is built on themes and vocabulary. Why is that a valid historical methodology for the New Testament but suddenly of no value in assessing statements other people make (and never attribute to Joseph)?

7. Joseph Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon.

[brant] This is not an initial assumption. If it were it would dictate the findings and invalidate the study. Once again you are confusing a research assumption with the result of findings from the research. Going in to the research I cannot assume what Joseph did or did not do, else I am not really testing the text. If, however, I find that the text matches a time and a place in ways that suggest an ancient text rather than a modern invention what other conclusion could I come to? A conclusion is not an assumption.

8. 19th century elements are not in the book, despite the fact that you want to put 19th century Joseph Smith's understanding and translation in the book, despite the statements of the witnesses.

[brant] That is not only not my assumption, it contradicts the findings I have from the text. I do find 19th century elements in the text. The problem is that I find them on the level of vocabulary and that is precisely the place where they cannot be determinative of origin precisely because the text claims to be a translation. If the Book of Mormon proclaimed that it was the very original, in the original language - and just for example's sake English were actually around at that time - then the language elements would disqualify it. However, it if is a translation then language elements ought to reflect the time and place of translation - particularly if it came from the 19th century. Examination of known translations for Native American texts from that time period demonstrate the influence of European vocabularly even when "translating" from an accepted native text.

9. Supernatural explanations, denying that any natural explanation when it doesn't support your view, denying the supernatural claims made by it's translators when it doesn't support your view and trying to adhere to a naturalistic explanation. Why not go with the whole naturalistic explanation?

[brant] You are still trying to make a conclusion into an assumption. If I compare the text to antiquity and find it lacking, I have no reason to suggest that supernatural explanations have anything to do with the text. Only after I determine that it is based on an ancient document do I have to face the other data that suggests a supernatural origin and them deal with them. The problem I see is that you really are beginning with the assumption that since the supernatural cannot be the explanation there must be a naturalistic explanation. That is an assumption that really does drive the analysis and color the data. What I am suggesting is that the proper approach is to set that issue aside and deal with what the text itself claims - just as I would do for any other text that never claimed any supernatural associations.

I can't speak for Dan, but I agree that I have to make some assumptions (all historical evidence will require some logical inference, but they hardly seem the leaps and assumption that you are asking me to make.

Review the above. I make only one assumption: if the text is ancient then it should behave like an ancient text and fit a particular time and place. One assumption. Is there anything wrong with that assumption? I'd love to hear what it is.

I do not see you making your argument that your's is more or less scientific, so I ask that you do not misinterpret my arguments against you.

Consider this response as that argument. I will confidently state that my single assumption better fits the accepted methodology of social science and ethnohistory in particular. I will confidently state that beginning, as you do, with the assumption that the claims about the text have already determined its nature before you even test it is not a viable ethnohistorical method and in fact is one that is specifically designed to reach only one possible conclusion. I would suggest that any method that doesn't allow for its own contradiction is not scientific.

Clear enough?

I argue that you are misapplying your methods by too easily dismissing the historical process of making the book and the background this casts on the book in the first place.

Please explain how I am too easily dismissing the historical events surrounding the modern production of the text.

Let's begin with this statement. If we posit, temporarily, that the evidence shows the text to be ancient, does that fact alter the way we read the data from that time period?

If the answer is no, I'd love to know why.

If the answer is yes, then I am not dismissing historical events because I have already dealt with the more fundamental question. Having the answer to the harder question I can then deal with the rest fo the data.

On the other hand, please tell me how you would begin with the historical events and the assumption that they could not be "true" and ever decide that the text itself was ancient. If that is not even possible, and I cannot see how it is, then I suggest that you have a fundamentally flawed methdology precisely because it can only come up with the answer it was designed to elicit.

I have considered the text of the Book of Mormon. Like I said before in conversations with you. I used to believe in it. I have read it as a believer 25+ times and as a nonbeliever additional times. I have looked at it from every angle I have come across. Including yours.

This is a very different issue. I cannot say what you have seen and how you have come to your conclusions. I can only provide the way I approach the text and give you the justifications behind it. I can certainly see that someone will look at what I find compelling and find it less so. That says that we read data differently - a rather widespread phenomenon. It doesn't say anything, however, about whether or not the research model is correctly drafted.

You write: "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."

May I suggest you look at the objectivity I am trying to use. I am not looking for the perfect objectivity method. I am looking for one that makes the most sense and settling for the one that jives with my experience.

Subjectivity is OK if you recognize it. Subjectivity that attempts to masquerade as objectivity is an interesting illusion.

I am confused by your "objectivity."

It is really quite simple. Take the text of the Book of Mormon and determine if it is ancient using the standard methods available to ethnohistory. If it is ancient, then that very antiquity creates a reality against which other data must be measured. If it isn't - it frankly doesn't matter and I ought to do something else with my time.

Are the Michigan relics to be treated as authentic? How about the Kinderhook plates? How about the JOseph Smith papyri? Do you hold these artifacts in the same manner as the Book of Mormon? How about Homer's Iliad? Do you try to support the supernatural parts of his story? Why not? We do not have his original text, we only have translations. You wouldn't ignore the historical production of these texts? Nor would you ignore applying these texts to what you have experienced and understand.

That's quite a list and remarkably confusing. The Michigan relics and Kinderhook plates are known forgeries. The Joseph Smith papyri are authentic. We don't have the original text Homer wrote, but it is incorrect to say that we have only translations.

I am not sure what the point of the question is. In all cases I suggest that standard procedures of the social sciences be applied to understanding. In the case of the forgeries, we actually get to have some hard science help us out for once. Other than that, I have no idea what you are getting at. What connection do I see between any of them and the Book of Mormon? I have used Homer before to indicate that a text that was deemed purely mythological might actually have data that show a particular location that demonstrates its link to history. Do I think that a historical Troy requires a historical Paris? No.

Unfortunate for your position is that naturalism has support, is open to all, and can be repeated with the same results under the same circumstances. Hence it is the only objective method out there.

Here is that conceptual error again. I agree that there are natural explanations for many things. I suspect my explanation for the translation method is much more natural than you could imagine. That notwithstanding, note that for all you are touting naturalism as scientific and wonderful, you are employing it in a way that is a-scientific at best and anti-scientific at worst. You are suggesting that since naturalism explains other things it therefore must be the explanation for the Book of Mormon. You then proceed to find evidence for that assumption.

That is the problem. You have begun your research with a fundamental assumption that allows only one conclusion. That conclusion necessarily colors the way you see the evidence. In other words, you build bias into the research.

Surely you don't think that naturalism agrees with biased research do you?

Naturalistic explanations are only modified by other naturalistic explanations.

Now there is dogma worthy of any religion.

You yourself attempt to use naturalism in many of your arguments to explain something claimed to be supernatural or only know by supernatural means. (i.e. the production of the Book of Mormon and answers from God that it is true.) Correct me if I am wrong, I am not saying I have it all figured out - it is just an observation.

That is amazing, isn't it. I am proposing a very naturalistic test for the text and you are arguing that I shouldn't do that but rather impose a supernatural test (if it is supernatural it must be wrong). I find that fascinating. Regardless of the way you describe what you are doing, I am actually applying a much more naturalistic approach to the text than you are because you assume the supernatural as an integral part of your approach.

So there you have it. I believe but apply a completely naturalistic methodology to the text.

You don't believe and apply the fundamental of assumption of its supernatural nature as a prerequisite to dismissing it as "unnatural" because of that supernatural association.

Ironic, isn't it?

I agree with many of the things you state here, if I assumed that the geography matched, the cultural data matched, etc. But these are assumptions and ignore the things that do not fit, such as horses, steel, and a host of other anachronistic material items, cultural neglects, as well as the missing links like identification of anything resembling specific people or events in the Book of Mormon to the Mayans or any group of known people. I know you see otherwise, but I feel it important to explain why I atleast, do think your point well taken.

And those issues are fundamentally important and worth discussing. Disagreement really should start there - and not at the peripheral information that can only be interpreted correctly if this first issue is resolved.

My mind can be changed with experience with God and the supernatural.

Interesting answer. I agree that this could change your mind. It did for Paul and Alma the Younger. However, if one begins with the assumption that such experience is impossible the likelihood of it happening is dramatically diminished - to the point where I suspect only a Pauline visitation might make a difference. I certainly don't see how evidence would make any difference.

Curious if you would answer my question: "Do you believe Joseph used a sonte to translate the Book of Mormon? Why or why not?"

It is fascinating that you ask this question since I thought I had answered it several times. Yes, Joseph used a stone to translation. What I don't know is how he used it. Since I believe that it really was a rock and that rocks don't talk or write, the question of how it was used is particularly interesting to me. However, there is very good information, including Joseph's own statements, that say that he used it. I would love to be able to determine how that happened.

Of course, that presumes that I have already determined that the text is ancient and therefore something really did happen.

[Confidential Informant]

Deleted because Brant already answered.

C.I.

[Dale]

Hi,

When I discuss the issue of whether the Book of Mormon horse might really be horses I have to admit that's one option. I am not sure I need to get upset with honest intellectual possibilities. But spiritually I don't accept others religions so I see no need to abandon the use of the Book of Mormon because I can't see the Bible as needing to be my final authority in faith or practice. With that issue I am just not sure the Trinity, or Justification by faith alone was early Christian doctrine. More likely rather than Martin Luther reforming the church I feel he led the church into another apostasy. If I could just accept his religion as fact rather than myth I could be upset about this horse issue.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Moksha]

If you are able to view the Book of Mormon for its symbolic truths, you don't have to worry whether there were real horses or unicorns or other chimera.

[Dan Vogel]

Brant,

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. In the case of Joseph Smith, your characterization of the process leaves out the times that people vouched for his ability and gave anecdotal evidence that suggested that he really did have a gift attached to the seer stone.

Personally, I would hate to have to attempt any history of a people that I fundamentally misunderstood and implicitly denigrated. The world "worked" that way for at least tens of thousand years longer than it has "worked" scientifically. I can assure you not everyone was a charlatan.

One of the interesting problems of anthropology is to explain how certain non-scientific things work - such as curses. Lots of stories are told corroborating the death of someone ostensibly healthy but who was the subject of a curse. The modern world can come up with a few scientific explanations as to how the curse worked, but it cannot be denied that in a very real and obvious way - it did.

I don

[Brant Gardner]

Dan Vogel:

Concerning my comments on magic "working."

I don

[Confidential Informant]

he BofM is unique. Give us a break. Your appeal to “objectivism” contradicts your earlier expression of epistemological relativism. So far, you have not outlined any methodology for us to examine. You have merely suggested that we give the same latitude to the BofM that we would give an undisputed historical document. So that if, say, this authentic document mentioned “horse” or “unicorn,” we would naturally search for viable alternatives. The problem is that the BofM historical status is disputed and it was “translated” under questionable circumstances. Until the BofM’s historical status is more secure, any theorizing about anachronisms is ad hoc. Whereas theorizing about Polo’s “unicorn” is not.

This appears to be an example of exactly what I was saying: Dan is crying "angel" in that it appears that he is demanding that Brant deal with the supernatural aspects of the translation method rather than treating the text as any other disputed ancient text.

C.I.

[Zeitgeist]

Brant,

I see our discussion winding up into circles. While I think some good points have been made, I do not think we are talking to one another. I will narrow the topic a little. I do not want to argue ceaselessly about methods, as I think we will continue to just insult each other, which is a far cry from what I want. I would respond to much of what you have written, I have lots to say, but frankly, I do not want to go there.

If you are trying to test the Book of Mormon text in a testable manner avoiding the supernatural, why are you not accepting the evidences concerning the book from those involved in its production and surrounding those involved? You have confused me greatly, do you say they have nothing to say about the text? What do their statements mean to you? What do you think they mean to the Book of Mormon?

If you agree that Joseph is reading something or seeing something from off the stone, wouldn't english words be the most likely, given the accounts of the translation process? Why or why not?

Why do you object to the other texts both ancient and modern, fictious in whole or part, that I mention as not having to follow the same rules? You seem willing to call parts of Homer's works fictious, why not parts of the Book of Mormon? You seem willing to call the Michigan relics and kinderhook plates frauds? So you have some criteria. These of course have the originals to work with and statements that relate to the texts to make them fraudulent. This said, why not treat them the same as the Book of Mormon? Why not accept all texts of religious natures that claim to be the word of God? I ask these because I am confused by what seems to be treating the Book of Mormon entirely different from how you would treat other texts. Am I wrong? If so, how? How would you approach these other texts (not just the ones I have listed). I would be curious how you would approach the:

(1) Shaker's texts, which abound with witnesses as to their historiocity, including at one point Martin Harris; And,

(2) the translated portion of the sealed part of the Book of Mormon, Known as the Oracles of Mohonri found here: http://www.all-jesus.com/mormon/sealed.htm. and in its entirety here: http://www.absalom.com/mormon/mohonri/contents.html

Do you think we should start with the assumption the text is true? Shouldn't we examine their production to understand the text?

Since I answered your belief question, that I would change my ind given evidence for it, maybe you will anwser mine: What would it take for you to call the Book of Mormon fiction?

Zeitgeist

[Benjamin McGuire]

Zeitgeist writes:

You know my opinion: I think they should be considered as they are vital to understanding the text before treating it as true. Since I answered your belief question, that I would change my ind given evidence for it, maybe you will anwser mine: What would it take for you to call the Book of Mormon fiction?

You aren't a believer (by your own admission). You believe then, essentially, that all of these statements about the origins of the Book of Mormon are essentially falsehoods.

So why, from either point of view, should they be considered vital to understanding the text? What is it about any text that requires us to ascertain the conditions under which it was produced before we can attempt to derive meaning from the text or to produce meaning from it?

But this seems to be, essentially, what you are demanding. Suppose that we know nothing about its origins. Suppose that God gave Joseph a package which contained a manuscript. The delivery system, and the production of the text which you read, have nothing to do with the content as it relates to the question of historicity. The historicity of a text (and certainly the verisimilitude of a text) can be ascertained without needing to know the texts origins or the process by which it was produced. A translation of text can be identified as such, even when an original is unknown, and there is no description of the process. So, why do you believe that all of this is anything more than a sideshow?

The simplest way to convince me that the Book of Mormon is fiction is to convince me that it cannott have ancient origins by showing conclusively that it was written/authored in the modern era (not just produced or delivered). I understand that this is a high bar. Obviously, neither Brant nor myself have convinced you that it is an ancient text either.

Do you think we should start with the assumption the text is true? Shouldn't we examine their production to understand the text?

What does a text being "true" have to do with the question of its historicity?

Ben

[Brant Gardner]

Zeitgeist:

If you are trying to test the Book of Mormon text in a testable manner avoiding the supernatural, why are you not accepting the evidences concerning the book from those involved in its production and surrounding those involved?

First, see Ben's comments above.

Second, perhaps you are confused because you have the order of things mistaken. I am not critical of the witness testimony until after I have established that the text is ancient and I have something against which to criticize the witness testimony.

Third, it isn't that I don't accept their statements. I am critical of their statements, just as I would critically examine any piece of evidence. Surely you are not contending that witnesses are 100% verifiable in all cases? If there is any reason to question any witness (and there is an abundance of data telling us that there is) then it is imperative to deal with these witnesses with just as critical a view.

If you agree that Joseph is reading something or seeing something from off the stone, wouldn't english words be the most likely, given the accounts of the translation process? Why or why not?

I'm afraid the answer to that is too involved and requires a lot of evidence and argument. Let me just say that I don't see any evidence that someone else produced the English text that Jospeh dictated to his scribes. I see him as involved in the translation process.

Why do you object to the other texts both ancient and modern, fictious in whole or part, that I mention as not having to follow the same rules? You seem willing to call parts of Homer's works fictious, why not parts of the Book of Mormon?

I'm afraid I don't follow you. Parts of Homer are fictious and parts are based on fact. The facts are historical. The Book of Mormon is also historical.

However, if you are asking me if the Book of Mormon contains errors and misreadings by those who wrote it, the answer would be yes - just as we would expect of an authentic ancient document.

If you are asking me if God caused the earthquakes as they said or if they were simply providential, that is a question of faith and doesn't bear on the text itself.

You seem willing to call the Michigan relics and kinderhook plates frauds?

More than "seem willing." In the case of the Michigan relics I have done so in an article avaiable on the FAIR website.

So you have some criteria.

You thought I didn't?

These of course have the originals to work with and statements that relate to the texts to make them fraudulent. This said, why not treat them the same as the Book of Mormon?

How long an answer do you want? If we had the original plates we could subject them to the same scientifica analysis and solve the question pretty easily. That is the difference in the cases where these forged pieces are available.

As for translations, there isn't much need to do that for the Kinderhook plates since they are forgeries (and I am aware of the historical issues surrounding them) and the Michigan relics don't have a text.

Why not accept all texts of religious natures that claim to be the word of God?

Seriously? I don't accept religious claims just because I happen to be the kind of person who is religious. There is a major difference between accepting uncritically and accepting critically. In the case of the Book of Mormon I have applied a number of decades worth of study in folklore, ethnohistory and Mesoamerica to my analysis. That is not nearly in the same category as believing an object because someone claims something for it. In fact, there are a number of LDS "proofs" of the Book of Mormon that I don't accept either.

I ask these because I am confused by what seems to be treating the Book of Mormon entirely different from how you would treat other texts. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. I am treating it exactly like I would (and have) other texts.

If so, how? How would you approach these other texts (not just the ones I have listed).

In general I don't much interest in modern religious texts. I confess that had I not been a believer I wouldn't have spent any time on the Book of Mormon. My academic interests are in ancient religion. I can tell you how I deal with Aztec religion if that will help you.

Do you think we should start with the assumption the text is true? Shouldn't we examine their production to understand the text?

The proper beginning point is to give a text the benefit of the doubt. That says that you treat is as if it is what it says it is. Now, if the document is purely religious philosophy there isn't much you can do with it. However, if it claims antiquity then you accept that claim long enough to test the claim. If it fails the test it isn't what it claims. If it passes the test, then it is.

If you have decided before you begin that the text is inauthentic, then you can write different kinds of sociological analysis - but you can't correctly test anything where you have so prejudged it that the conclusion is foregone. At least that was one of the earliest lessons I learned in any of the sciences.

What would it take for you to call the Book of Mormon fiction?

If I had compared it to ancient history and it didn't meet basic criteria for antiquity. I would expect that any modern writer would subconsciously structure the text in modern ways. Even if there were nothing obvious, the text would be incorrect in its assumptions of motivations and human relations. Most modern readers are quite unaware of ancient societies and how they operated. I would expect to find a lot of those subtle problems.

Here is a quick one that tells you that the Spaulding Manuscript is fiction. It pays attention to describing certain events in detail because they are foreign to a modern reader - even when they would have been commonplace to someone from that time period. Authentic ancient texts assume the reader's competence in the culture of the text.

[Zeitgeist]

Ben,

You ask an fair question, though I think it should be obvious. You ask: "You aren't a believer (by your own admission). You believe then, essentially, that all of these statements about the origins of the Book of Mormon are essentially falsehoods. So why, from either point of view, should they be considered vital to understanding the text? What is it about any text that requires us to ascertain the conditions under which it was produced before we can attempt to derive meaning from the text or to produce meaning from it?"

Can you tell me why they wouldn't be? Take for example my suggestion to Brant that he consider the Mahonri text found here: http://www.absalom.com/mormon/mohonri/contents.html

Are we to take this solely by what is stated? Can we not make some judgements about this text? Are we to completely ignore how this text came to be? Don't you think we should examine the process this book was produced? Or closer to home when you read the Doctrine and Covenants, isn't it helpful to learn more about the surrounding people, time, puuposes/question that caused this revelation?

Here is how I approach the statements:

1. I start with a question. In this case, what process was involved in producing (I do not mean making up, but bring about) the Book of Mormon? The question of the true/false of the Book of Mormon is not the question - it is a conclusion based in part what the evidence about this question tells me, I do not come to this conclusion because I think the Book of Mormon false. For example I take the statements partly in error when they attribute a translation by means of a stone. This does not match my experience or anything that makes sense to me, I have to say they are wrong. Other believe that stones can aid in translation. Why, they have never said. Brant is wrong to suggest I start with this conclusion. He is also wrong to suggest his method is the only one to objectively measure the Book of Mormon. Frankly, there in perfectly objective method to test any history, it requires making judgements of some sort. I strive for objectivity, fully knowing that it is completely impossible, but so is everything if held up to perfection.

2. I look for those involved and see what they say.

3. I look for those for those close at hand and see what they say.

4. I look at the sources, whether they are credible, weighing the time and place of the statements, how they were transmitted, recorded, etc. (Sometimes this requires weeding out parts or all of a statement. Sometimes it adds more to the statement.)

5. I then compare the statements, looking for similarities and differences.

6. I try to put the story to gether based on this process, making sure it fits all the evidence, withstand scrutiny and criticism, and sounds reasonable. Contra opinion, I often have no idea where the evidence may point, I really do try to go where the evidence leads.

7. I listen to criticism, get differning opinions, and adapt or out right change my theory if something new is brought to my attention to warrant it.

You ask: "But this seems to be, essentially, what you are demanding. Suppose that we know nothing about its origins. Suppose that God gave Joseph a package which contained a manuscript. The delivery system, and the production of the text which you read, have nothing to do with the content as it relates to the question of historicity. The historicity of a text (and certainly the verisimilitude of a text) can be ascertained without needing to know the texts origins or the process by which it was produced. A translation of text can be identified as such, even when an original is unknown, and there is no description of the process. So, why do you believe that all of this is anything more than a sideshow?"

It is true one can often come to a conclusion of a text simply by reading it alone. But what will you base this on is an important question. The Book of Mormon however, has surround material, besides the text to aid in this decision of true/false? Don't you think we should examine it and not ignore it? Don't you think it bears some worth to the text? I disagree that a translation can be so easily identified. I have spent enough time looking at documents to know that nothing is always so clear. It always requires some contextualizing.

The following is not aimed at anyone and is not intended to be considered preaching how wonderful I am, it is just my thoughts. I get accused of not following naturalistic explantion and evidence handling most often by those that believe stones can translate, angels talk ot men, and there is an invisible world all around us. Ironicly they claim that they are following such procedure. I believe everything should be examined, sometimes even our most cherished beliefs and thoughts. Every assumption must be examined, not ceaselessly, but openly and honestly. FAIR means something. To be fair we should not hold up others to the standards we are not willing to impose on our selves.

Zeitgeist

[Zeitgeist]

Brant,

Obviously this centers around what we consider evidence and what measure that is. We both know where we disagree and agree. I am afraid you misinterpret much of what I say. I hope it is mostly due to my inability to speak your language and not your general personality. Though I feel like you are consistently picking ways to find error and blugeon me on words rather than deal with what I am trying to say and ask. It saddens me that this is how you come across.

I stumbled across your website many many years ago and was very impressed with how sincere and honest you came across. I still think you are honest, but I really feel no sincerity in your responses to me. They seem more like combat rather than discussion. Rather than answer questions, I feel like you are picking away at me ceaselessly. While I am sure you will just turn around and accuse me of the same thing, I will just bow out of this dance.

Dr. Peterson's wrote an very good article that summed much of what I thought. Really we shouldn't be out to trounce each other's methods so much. It is insulting that we cannot talk about the witnesses statements, without blasting methods and implying how we surely do not understand the discipline, how we do not understand reasonign, etc. If this is our way of conversing, how can we ever hope to reach a common audience? Unfortunately the jist of you conversation (You surely aren't talking to me), you are always right. Unless I came away believing I am always wrong. I feel like my very presence is unwelcome and seen as intiating combat. Can I not criticise and ask questions without offending you? Why take these things so personally? I have tried to avoid to the combat, but unfaortunately have been drawn in. For this I apologize. Really I don't give a damn what you believe about the Book of Mormon or the Church. I never came here to turn you away form that. While many here engage in this sort of bashing the church, I am sincerely interested in the story of the Mormons. But at the same time I am not going to spit out church propaganda. It pains me when I hear Mormons verablly abused and taken incorrectly. Believe me you do not know to what lengths I have gone to correct people about Mormons. I have lost friends over it. I have nothing to gain and nothing to protect. I just want to be as accurate and truthful about it as possible.

I openingly admit that I have biases, but you don't? I have already told you I have considered your ideas the most impressive to date regarding putting the Book of Mormon in a place and time. (Even if I do not believe in a time and place for the Book of Mormon) I really would have liked to discuss them more. Does discuss require that I believe like you? Is the only way to make any judgements about anything require it be from your perspective? Is my perspective really that skewed and incorrect? Can I not disagree and still not be an methodolgical idiot? Am I really that deluded? I do not think Mormons are deluded. It cuts both ways though.

I guess we will have to just plain disagree about the word horse in the Book of Mormon. I have tried to establish that we can learn from the statements of the witnesses about the process of the translation. Yes I will go so far as to infer/assume that English is what can be claimed to appear on the stone, even if I do not believe in stones that translate. This is what I believe Joseph said to others was happening, which I base on their own statements. Cry foul, they never specifically state it was English! To which I would respond they never specifically state a lot of things. If I was to operate on such a standard I would be nit-picky too. It is reasonable and more reasonable (to me) to believe it wasn't anything else, until I have better information otherwise. Tough, you do a lousy job of convincing me otherwise. This may insult you, but it is my opinion of you and your behaviour.

My conclusion thus far: Horse is anachronistic and thus reflects poorly on the Book of Mormon as being a literal account of real people. You have said nothing to convince me otherwise. You have spent countless posts trying to discredit my methods, but have said little as to what was on the stones, if not English. You have explained little about horses in the Book of Mormon, only that you do not think that the word horse is not anachronistic. I am interested if horse is wrong, what other things are wrong in the text? If you believe it has errors, what parts? Why?

I would really like to know what your take on the two texts I mentioned are? How do you suggest we approac these?

Zeitgeist

[Brant Gardner]

Zeitgeist:

I checked out the link you gave to see what I could find quickly. Here are some historical problems I found.

1 Moroni 1:1

1. And the Lord spake unto me, Moroni, saying: take ye this record, even this most sacred record which I have preserved in your hands, and seal it up unto me.

2. Yea, lay upon it thy hands, and anoint ye it with sacred oil, that it might be preserved unto me from the hands of the destroyer for the benefit of future generations.

This author has Moroni annointing the plates with holy oil. Apart from the language that is certainly modern, the concept of annointing an inanimate object with oil would be foreign to the way I understand that function anciently. Ben will know better than I, but I believe that it should be for people - and at that time period probably rulers.

1 Moroni 2

1.And as I, Moroni, journeyed with the sealed plates, and with the stone called Urim and with the stone called Thummim,

This one is interesting for several reasons. First, it depends upon the Book of Mormon, but the Book of Mormon always refers to the stones as interpreters and consistently uses the plural. Rather than contradicting history, this contradicts the text upon which it depends for its accuracy. That is not the time of inconsistency that is expected of someone who knew the objects and the tradition.

Writings of Moroni 1

6 But the man did gain entrance into the house, by what means I knew not, for the door was bolted;

Here is an anachronism that I can't account for. The text requires this action - not simply the presence of the door and bolt. The problem is we don't get doors and certainly don't have bolts for them. Why is this different from a translation issue? Because of the action involved and the meaning for the text. It is essential to the text that the door be bolted - but that condition would not exist regardless of any vocabulary issue. I can see a curtain in a doorway being called a "door" - but I can't see anyway to perform the concept of bolting it.

Does that give you an idea of the process?

[Paul McNabb]

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,

I've been sitting back for a while, but I feel the need to pipe in here.

The methodology you have described won't work for proving or disproving the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Finding an enormous number of parallels between the Book of Mormon and an American Indian culture would only indicate that the American Indian culture was a candidate for the Book of Mormon production environment. It would have no bearing on whether or not ancient meso-American cultures were also candidates. If there turned out to be parallels to AI cultures, an obvious second question would then be how closely 19th century American Indian cultures resembled ancient meso-American cultures.

The question isn't whether the Book of Mormon could be 19th century creation. Although a negative finding there would be very interesting, a positive finding doesn't answer much.

You need to create a methodology that can determine whether or not the text of the Book of Mormon contains strong indications of being a translation of an ancient text.

For example, if I had a document that claims to be about the ancient village of Buckhamton and which mentions an inn and a bakery on the corner of Kings Road and High Street, it wouldn't say much if you found a similar configuration in 21st century Boston or London. Looking for parallels outside of what the text claims is essentially irrelevant until the text has been found to be inconsistent with those claims. External parallels come into play only when the text's claims are found to be spurious and you want to look at other candidates.

The only way to disprove the Book of Mormon is an ancient text is to examine its claims and compare them to the ancient environment in which it claims to have been written. No amount of comparison to modern cultures can disprove the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Such a study can at best result in an alternative explanation for those wishing to comfortably disbelieve the historicity claims as a matter of subjective preference.

Of course, you may choose not to bother with investigating the historicity issue because you simply cannot accept the transmission story. But that's an entirely different argument...

[Addictio]

Brant responded to Dan in part as follows:

I find it fascinating that you seem to think that your inability to imagine how something could be done might be an argument against that method. Let me give you an example from Mesoamerican ethnohistory. There are a number of Spanish sources that claim to be describing native sources. While they aren't translating a text, because no text existed, they are translating oral data. By collecting the various Spanish statements on Quetzalcoatl's clothing and comparing those statements to the known culture and artistic depictions we can recreate both what they saw and heard and how close their "translation" was to the original. Knowing how faithful they were and the particular types of translation shifts they applied to the data we can understand better other passages. It really isn't all that hard.

The secret is to determine first if it is a translation. If it is, then everything else works just the way it does with other documents.

I've pointed out the problems I see with this kind reasoning before to Brant, as I recall, to no avail. Oh well, for the benefit of others who might be reading, let me explain what I mean.

Brant compares two entirely dissimilar situations as a proposed justification for his approach. What makes them fatally dissimilar are the host of differences between what can or cannot reasonably be assumed or concluded without begging the question. In the case of the Spanish documents, everyone reasonably assumes or concludes, among other things, the following. Compare those conclusions/assumptions with those we must make in the case of JS as a translator.

The Spanish documents resulted from the collision between two cultures, Spanish and Amerindian, whose existence and contact no one questions. This cultural collision is attested to and reflected in hundreds, indeed thousands, of documents the authenticity of which is not questioned. The fact of the collision is not in dispute.

In the case of JS, the person assertedly doing the "translation," the only face-to-face "collision" through which he claimed to have received oral information was with the angel Moroni, whose existence (unlike the Amerindians whom the Spanish recordkeepers relied upon) is both disputed and is, as far as BoM historicity is concerned, something that cannot be assumed without begging the question. The "secret," Brant says, is "to determine first if it is a translation." Invoking the Spanish colonial documents, along with a proffered "reasonable" (or "usual" or "accepted") ethnographic approach for investigating and interpreting them, however, does absolutely nothing to justify the same approach to JS's written reports of his conversations with Moroni.

By his own account, JS was in a completely different situation from the set of Spanish recordkeepers whose behavior Brant invokes here. He and he alone encountered a single person who gave a brief account of the ancient origin and beliefs of his ancestors. Accordingly, JS's own motives and purposes are both disputed and "at issue" (in any discussion of BoM historicity) in a completely different way. No one contends that the Spanish recordkeepers created imaginary beings to whom they attributed an imaginary cultural biography and other ancient information. The Spanish recordkeeepers' context, including their inclinations, motives and verbal behavior are therefore reasonably discerned not only from their own writings but from the largely undisputed nature of the "collision" in which they were participating.

Instead, suppose one such Spanish recordkeeper claimed that he interviewed a mysterious stranger who told quite a different story of his ancestors, on the basis of which the Spaniard felt called to found a new Christian church. What "ethnographer" would treat his unique account of such a private encounter, and his own inferred context, along with his actual or potential motives, as being the same or similar to those of his Spanish colonial contemporaries? Would an ethnographer critically approaching that unique account justify her inferences about its nature and the purposes of its "recorder" based upon (arguable?) similarities between the accounts and motives of the other Spanish recordkeepers? Would she say, as Brant is wont to, "I'm just treating it like I would any other contemporary account by Spanish recordkeepers about their contacts with and information obtained from Amerindians"? We might at least, being charitable, imagine her suppressing a smile.

No matter how many ways Brant's argument gets dressed up, fitted, as here, with the next "comparison of the day," its logic is just as defective and its purpose just as rhetorical, and pointless. If there were some point to the exercise, we could imagine along with Brant some justifying consensus among historians or ethnographers about how a purportedly ancient document of disputed provenance, composition and authenticity, one allegedly "very similar to the BoM," is or should be analyzed. But with hands firmly to bootstraps, why bother imagining a scholarly consensus regarding the methodology appropriate for analyzing some "very similar document" when, simply by looking around, we can see that none exists regarding the BoM? (I know, the idea is that if Coe or Diehl read enough of the very recent work of BoM-historicity defenders they might just be able to discern and bless the methodology, even if they remained unpersuaded by the merits. See sidebar, below.)

Relaxing the present Gardnerian analogy a bit, we could move beyond comparing documents based upon oral accounts of many Amerindians whose existence is not questioned with the record of a private oral account by one angelic being whose existence is.

What then would we compare? Perhaps one of Brant's oft-invoked (ZLMB vintage) and John Sorenson's favorites, the Grolier Codex, compared to the BoM? It's more analogous than the written colonial accounts Brant mentioned here, since its provenance was mysterious and its authenticity questioned, as is the BoM's. On the other hand, it's not a "translation." Hmm, what to do, what to do? Nothing, for now, I guess.

[sidebar: Unfortunately, to appreciate the social comedy in its full regalia, one would have to explore the wistful "similarity" between the perceptive brilliance of the plucky Coe, defying the Mesoamerican scholarly establishment in the form of towering-but-clueless Thompson, later re-enacted (er, through analogy) by Sorenson against that same establishment, now in the form of (tsk, tsk) the proud-and-forgetful Coe.]

If Brant or someone else wants to mount an argument based on the Grolier Codex, they can go ahead. I've already indicated above the type of rebuttal I think is available and why the bootstrapping methodological contentions are pointless. In quick sum, the apologetic move involves ignoring the glaring differences between the documents while identifying methodological "lessons" derived from their claimed similarities, or from the nature of the debate about the GC's authenticity. In any event, before considering the alternate, yet similar methods scholars might use to find authenticating evidence of "Mesoamerica" hidden in each document, it might be helpful to post pictures of the GC next to the BoM text at II Ne. 5, v. 6. Not forgetting to highlight Nephi's words "and all those who would go with me," lest they be overlooked.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Zeigeist writes:

Can you tell me why they wouldn't be? Take for example my suggestion to Brant that he consider the Mahonri text found here: http://www.absalom.com/mormon/mohonri/contents.html

What about this text? Have you read it? (I have). Don't you think we can assess that text in the same fashion? Are you somehow suggesting that in doing so, we would come to the conclusion that the book must be historical?

Let me start with an interesting objection. There are three individuals which are discussed in this work, named Lehi, Ishmael, and Laban:

Lehi

And Lehi was the son of Jeshron, a High Priest among the Jews who lived in Jerusalem.  And Lehi was also a High Priest like his father before him.  And they were High Priests after the order of Aaron, who received instructions of the Lord from the mouth of Moses at the time the Israelites wandered in the wilderness. And Jeshron was the son of Emrish.  And Emrish was the son of Nathaniel.  And Nathaniel was the son of Chemish. And Chemish was the son of Alabash.  And Alabash was the son of Minorech, a High Priest who was much beloved of the people in the land of the Israelites. And Minorech was the son of Libnah. And Libnah was the son of Joshua.  And Joshua was the son of Gilead.  And Gilead was the son of Shechem, who was also a great High Priest and was known throughout the lands of Israel as a righteous man of God. And Shechem was the son of Shiloh.  And Shiloh was the son of Abinadi.  And Abinadi was the son of Benjamin.  And Benjamin was the son Ebal.  And Ebal was the son of Joshua. And Joshua was the son of Kolesh.  And Kolesh was the son of Tershis.  And Tershis was the son of Gerizim.  And Gerizim was the son of Malachi.  And Malachi was the son of Saresh. And Saresh was the son of Judah who was the son of Ephraim, who was the son of Joseph.

Ishmael

And there was another High Priest who knew that the things that Lehi had spoken were true.  And his name was Ishmael, and he had for a long time known Lehi and his family.  And they were friends who had shared many times together united with their families. But Ishmael dared not to say anything in the defense of Lehi; for Ishmael feared Laban.  And it was Laban who also had the loyalty and the trust of the captain of the guard and the soldiers who were assigned to administer the law in that part of the land of Israel.

Laban

And it came to pass that after Zenos had testified of the end of the world and the destruction of the wicked, Laban, the chief high priest, stood forth and commanded that Zenos be struck down for his blasphemy against the church of God.  For behold, Laban denied that the church of God was corrupt and that the leaders thereof were misleading the people.  And Laban stood forth and testified of the righteousness of the church and its leaders.

While the writer of the Book of Mormon seems to know more than a fair bit about the Old Testament, this writer does not. Three non-Levitical High Priests - one of them the chief High Priest?

Are we to take this solely by what is stated? Can we not make some judgements about this text? Are we to completely ignore how this text came to be? Don't you think we should examine the process this book was produced? Or closer to home when you read the Doctrine and Covenants, isn't it helpful to learn more about the surrounding people, time, puuposes/question that caused this revelation?

Clearly, the text makes a claim (independant of the person who produced it). That claim should be verifiable - independantly of any alleged production. So, the process by which the text was produced is largely irrelevant to the question of whether or not the text is what it claims to be. (Excepting of course, if that process clearly contradicts the claims of the text.) If the book is not what it claims to be, then we can adress the question of the description of the process. But, just because we question the descriptions of its production doesn't, in and of itself, help us determine if the text is what it claims to be, since in all cases, the description itself is a text, and it may not be accurate. (In this case, for example, we would have someone like Dan Vogel telling us that this is merely a fictional account of the production of the Book of Mormon prepared to convince others).

1. I start with a question. In this case, what process was involved in producing (I do not mean making up, but bring about) the Book of Mormon?

What good does this do in determining whether or not the content is historical?

For example I take the statements partly in error when they attribute a translation by means of a stone. This does not match my experience or anything that makes sense to me, I have to say they are wrong. Other believe that stones can aid in translation. Why, they have never said. Brant is wrong to suggest I start with this conclusion. He is also wrong to suggest his method is the only one to objectively measure the Book of Mormon. Frankly, there in perfectly objective method to test any history, it requires making judgements of some sort. I strive for objectivity, fully knowing that it is completely impossible, but so is everything if held up to perfection.

So, in other words, it is okay to formulate conclusions about a text, and about whether or not that text represents history, by addressing everything but the text itself?

It is true one can often come to a conclusion of a text simply by reading it alone. But what will you base this on is an important question. The Book of Mormon however, has surround material, besides the text to aid in this decision of true/false? Don't you think we should examine it and not ignore it? Don't you think it bears some worth to the text? I disagree that a translation can be so easily identified. I have spent enough time looking at documents to know that nothing is always so clear. It always requires some contextualizing.

I am not interested in the question of true/false. Nothing that I am aware of can ojectively answer that question.

And no, the surrounding information as you put it, has absolutely zero bearing on the text. Particularly in the way that you approach it. In essence though, what is astonishing to me (and to Brant apparently) is this willingness of yours to suggest that the traditional methodologies used to determine the historicity (or versimilitude) of a text simply aren't worth applying here. Why is that?

We aren't ignoring this information. We are simply suggesting that it is inconsequential to establishing a date for the material described in the text. Whether you are convinced or not, particularly in Biblical studies (where I am widely read, wlthough Brant introduces similar cases in his field of study) where the dating of texts is important, and the question of authorship is important, there is a wide range of methods and discussions on how to determine the original language of a translation, and whether or not a text is a translation or whether apparent artifacts of translation are due to specific kinds of sources being used, and so on.

What I don't understand though, is why you think that how Joseph Smith received his revelation (looking at a rock in a hat, via the postal service, stolen from another writer, or what not) has any impact on the question of the historicity of the content of the text. Either the content matches the historical millieu which it claims for itself, or it doesn't. And if you believe the text is of modern authorship, then the claims about its production are meaningless - since you don't believe them in any case. And an argument for a dating of the text cannot be made on the basis that the descriptions that we have were a deliberate falsehood. Such an argument needs to be made on the basis that there is evidence of modern authorship (and this is, generally speaking, the way that Dan Vogel views the text and the defense of his arguments).

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

Addicto writes:

In the case of JS, the person assertedly doing the "translation," the only face-to-face "collision" through which he claimed to have received oral information was with the angel Moroni, whose existence (unlike the Amerindians whom the Spanish recordkeepers relied upon) is both disputed and is, as far as BoM historicity is concerned, something that cannot be assumed without begging the question. The "secret," Brant says, is "to determine first if it is a translation." Invoking the Spanish colonial documents, along with a proffered "reasonable" (or "usual" or "accepted") ethnographic approach for investigating and interpreting them, however, does absolutely nothing to justify the same approach to JS's written reports of his conversations with Moroni.

And the reason why your comments are absolutely meaningless here Addicto (as usual) is that you are trying to pull the "angel" card in your typical fashion. Let's face it. You are trying to use "disputed" facts to determine the historicity of the text - disputed facts which have absolutely nothing to do with the text - which (even if successfully refuted) cannot tell you anything about the provenance of the text. So, like others that Brant is being critical of, you ignore the actual text in favor of any argument which involves the supernatural, simply so that you can easily dismiss that argument on the basis that it involves a supernatural event.

We've had this discussion before, haven't we? And your position is still as meaningless as it was before.

Ben