Book of Mormon "Horses"

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

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.

Here we have Addictio's version of the same operating assumption that Zeitgeist and Dan have proposed. The circumstances about the text so trump the text that we have to treat it differently and toss the rules of scholarship.

This appraoch prejudges the text, no matter the rhetoric in which it is couched. It is a method that begins with a premise that cannot be tested because it is declared by fiat. I don't know where that substitutes for a good research plan.

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,

Amazing statement. Read the Chilam Balam of Chumayel and see how well you do in that cultural collision. I assume you have not met a Maya priest so you would be even less in a cultural collision that you suggest for Joseph. Ralph Roys translated it for you, so all you need to do is grapple with the English. Please tell me what it means. Your idea that a cultural collision can happen only in person is pretty simplistic.

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.

And we return to the fundamental problem. Addictio can't test the text because he is certain there is nothing to test. He is so certain that even the test begs the question.

The problem is that it is the very question that is begging to be answered. I can see how an operating assumption that allows for the possibility of historicity can be falsified. I cannot see how one that declares historicity to be impossible could ever be falsified.

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.

Let's clarify this particular argument. It begins by speaking about a text and translation, then says that a scholarly approach to determining a translation cannot be correct because Joseph Smith had a conversation with someone that Addictio doesn't believe existed. Since Joseph made that fantastic claim, therefore there is something wrong with the text.

A text is not a conversation. The reports of the conversations are pretty thin and to my reading represent a visual, not a graphic "discussion." Regardless of that report, however, we still have the text and it is a big one. There is enough information in it to text it with academic tools.

I spite of what ought to be a reasonable proceedure, Addictio insists (along with Zeitgeist and Dan) that the proper procedure is to begin with the assumption that there is nothing to test.

No one contends that the Spanish recordkeepers created imaginary beings to whom they attributed an imaginary cultural biography and other ancient information.

Note the loaded language. The Spanish didn't create an imaginary being, therefore the situation is different. Fascinating. Ignore the text and return to the information surrounding the text. Since we can't believe that we can't believe the text. Begin with an assumption and make sure that you use data that supports the assumption.

In which science, hard or soft, is this a correct procedure?

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.

Clearly you haven't done much research in this field. The nature of that collision is precisely what ethnohistorians are after. It was quite complex and there was actually a lot of inventing going on. The "great white god" was invented out of available legends and has become a myth of its own. You see, the Spanish really did create some imaginary beings - but not the same kind you were talking about. Still, it indicates that you aren't very aware of the subject you are trying to use as an example.

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.

Let's compare the logic:

I am suggesting that since we have a text it should be treated like any other text and tested as one. This means that it should behave like a text. It should conform to time and space. It should be appropriate to a foreign culture. All of those are testable hypotheses and are pretty standard historical tests.

Addictio suggests that a superior logic is that since we already "know" that the claim for the origin of the text could not possibly be true, therefore the text cannot possibly be true.

If one of the concepts of modern scientific study is to test our hypotheses, which of these is testable?

Notice that Addictio doesn't claim that any of the historical tests applied to the text are incorrect. He isn't claiming that the culture doesn't fit (though he might do that in another post). Here the argument has nothing to do with method. It has to do with the initial research assumption.

I am saying you test with an open mind and follow the data.

Addictio is saying that you prejudge the conclusion before you begin.

I don't know how am at dressing that particular rhetoric, but I can tell you that if I ask any scientist of the hard or soft scientists whether a hypothesis should be testable or should begin with a predetermined outcome - I know which one they will select.

I don't know why Addictio thinks that establishing a hypothesis that cannot be tested as any value other than justifying the belief one has before doing the "test."

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.

I kept this passage because the Grolier is really quite instructive. At the time it was declared a forgery it was done on visual evidence, because it couldn't be read. What could be seen was an artistic form that appeared more European than native. There were aspects of the text that seemed to have a greater affinity for European artistic forms than those known to be authentically Maya. Based on the superficial relationship to something more modern, it was declared inauthentic.

Then they learned to read it. Since that art had been lost, it would be impossible to accidentally create something that actually produced correct Maya text.

Is the issue one of "translation"? No, the translation was the proof. The issue with the Grolier is that there was a text that was disputed based on external criteria and the primary one had to do with an assumption brought to the text that a certain type of linework had to be European, not native.

I don't seem to have the limitation of imagination that Addictio does, because I seem some dramatic parallels in the situation between the way the Grolier was judged and the way the Book of Mormon text is judged. Forget provenance - look at the text. The Grolier was never authenticated by worrying about provenance. It was authenticated by going to the text.

Let's see - a text that was judged on an unknown provenance and its modern-appearing features. Yes, I can see that as parallel and instructive for the Book of Mormon. Particularly when Addictio continues to presume that the provenance is conclusive to the point that we don't even need to examine the text.

By the way, what do you find significantly different for the other example I use frequently, the Histoire du Mexique. That is a translated text - it is from the wrong time and in the wrong language, found in the wrong country. Nevertheless, it is accepted as a translation of a more ancient document.

[Paul Osborne]

Real horses roamed about in Book of Mormon times.

I trust the BofM more than I do what scientists have or have not found in their studies. What the Lord has said is sufficient for me.

Paul O

[Tarski]

Real horses roamed about in Book of Mormon times.

I trust the BofM more than I do what scientists have or have not found in their studies. What the Lord has said is sufficient for me.

Paul O

Paul. Do you know what "begging the question" means?

The evidence suggests that it wasn't the Lord speaking in the first place. That has to be at least considered doesn't it?

[Zeitgeist]

Brant,

Like I said I really feel like you are making special exceptions for the Book of Mormon.

I think you are mistaken about this text, Brant. It is part of the text of the Book of Mormon. We do not know what the stones told the author. In fact, I am quite certain that we need not look at those elements as anacrornistic, because I think the Lord simply put it in our language so we would understand it. I suspect that the Book of Mormon in other passages left out sacred oil for a reason, to test our faith. We cannot test the Book of Mahonri without first looking for ancient parallels in the text and see if they match a know ancient culture. That is the only objective manner in which to test the text, from the text itself. What you see as anachronism is easily explained by the fact that ancient Mayans used all sorts of ingredients in their worship, what may have also included oil. You are supplanting your world view on the fact that the oil is for people. In ancient Israel blood from a sacred sacrifice was used to mark the entrance of homes during passover. The fact that Mahonri is placing sacred oil to protect, much like the Israelities did to protect their homes from the destroying angel is symbolic of the blood of the Lamb which has been shed for our protection from sin and death. Christ overcame death and so can we. The fact that oil was placed on an object rather than on a person is moot, and actually demonstrates it's truthfulness. We consecrate our homes, graves, and meeting houses for use and protection. While we may not use the oil the concept is their and the symbolism is not lost thankfully we have this revealed text to help us appreciate the ancient culture of the Mayans more fully.

You are right the Book of Mormon does not refer to the interpreters as the Urim and Thummim, atleast up until the sealed portion. One Urim and one Thummim together are two objects and thus plural. So I see no inconsistency.

Door bolts are easily explained by translation method. The Lord surely wouldn't use the Mayan term for door. The fact that the Mayans do not have a word for door bolt is completly unrelated. The limited nature of the Nephite existence within the population likely kept this word within their own clique. The Mayans never picking up on the use of the door bolt. We need not be concerned as the stones were not really using English or any language for that matter. We really do not know the method and thus must rely on the text itself. Intereestingly bolt is a word that has many meanings and could signify a stick behind a door to keep it from opening. While doors are very uncommon, it is not unlikely that they were not used. They most likely would have been made with wood and decayed by now or used for fire wood.

Brant I will not comment on your methodology. Your problem is not the method, which I believe is sound - just misapplication of the method. Are you sure you are not treating the Book of Mormon in a special way? I of course am not serious in my belief regarding the book of Mahonri either. Any thoughts concerning my defense?

Zeitgeist

[Brant Gardner]

Zeitgeist:

Door bolts are easily explained by translation method. . .

Brant I will not comment on your methodology.

But you just did. You seem to have missed the reason I noted that door bolts cannot be explained by a translation. While vocabulary might shift, actions and concepts tend not to. In the KJV a candle might replace the more authentic oil lamp - but it functions as a candle, not a nuclear reactor.

I can see why you don't follow my methodology if you are able to so fundamentally misunderstand it. My arguments about translation happen to be based on linguistics and known processes in known translations.

Your post is an interesting excercise in sarcasm, but not a very competent analysis. I had hoped that you would take it seriously. It seems that understanding was not really your intent. So be it.

I don't see any reason to continue the conversation under those conditions.

[Zeitgeist]

Brant,

Do no take my point as sarcasm. It was not meant to belittle - only reflect on the arguments we sometimes make. I think I could actually write a better defense, given I had enough time. You exaggerate my defense with the nuclear reactor comment. I took what you said seriously, and I agree with it. I just do not think that it happens to be the only possibility especially when someone believes in the Book of Mahonri. I am interested how you can see door bolts as an anachronism while horses are not. I am interested in how you can pick on the plurality of interpretors but not dubious names like Timothy. I am interested in how you can discount oil, when you claim that so many critics of the Book of Mormon fail to appreciate the full possibilities of a culture and people. Like you came up with parallels of a religious nature that fit in a culture. I happened to fill in the blanks of the text and culture where we do not have a perfect fit.

I really did not go with this to be sarcastic, but only to try and illustrate what your arguments look like to me. I am not belittling, just saying our creativity is endless. We cannot limit ourselves solely to a text and try and see if it fits an ancient culture and declare it true. The Book of Mormon is too complex for that, the history surround it's production has very much to do with our take on the book - at least to me and others. In Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations edited by John W. Welch, there are over 200 documents regarding the transaltion of the Book of Mormon. The author feels like these have much to say about the text of the Book of Mormon as being authentic. He comes to a different conclusion, but I agree with him - they should not be ignored and have a great deal to say about the Book of Mormon - even before one reads the text.

We can disagree about the conclusion, but I really do not find a reason to disagree so much about what proper methodology means. I was glancing at the Book of Mormon authorship edited by Noel Reynolds the other day and came across an article that basically outlines your approach. We should never limit ourselves in tools, discipline, or context when examining anything. The more information the better. I welcome more comments from you. Like I said I do have a respect for Mormons, the Book of Mormon (I really still read it and enjoy it. I think it deserves to be placed among the top 10 most influential books in American history.), and your sincere attempt to place it in time and place. I do disagree with you on many points, but I think we still can be conversant.

Zeitgeist

[Zeitgeist]

I thought I would add more sources to the stew. In opening the Heavens Brant, you may wish to examine source 17 and 23. A more full text of these are printed in Vogel's Early Mormon Documents. This is the only downside to the Opening the Heavens book - short quotes and too much summarizing of people's statements.

Joseph Smith Interview with Peter Bauder

October 1830

Peter Bauder, The Kingdom and Gospel of Jesus Christ: Contrasted with That of Anti-Christ. A Brief Review of Some of the Most Interesting Circumstances, Which Have Transpired Since the Institution of the Gospel of Christ, from the Days of the Apostles (Canajoharie, New York: Printed by A. H. Calhoun, 1834), 36-38.

Editoral Note

Copies of Bauder's thirty-nine page work are extremely rare. I have used the copy in possession of Forest Baker of Challis, Idaho, who purchased it from rare book dealer Rick Grunder of Syracuse, New York, a photocopy of which can be found among the papers of the late Wesley P. Walters, formerly of Marissa, Illinois. Bauder is probably the same person listed in the 1820 census of Albany, Albany County, New York, between twenty-six and forty-five years of age (1820:151).

[Addictio]

Brant:

Hmm, apparently an aggressive, albeit mistaken offense is easier to mount than a defense. Your repeated assertion that "my approach" assumes, for example, that JS didn't communicate with Moroni, or worse, that "there is nothing to test" because by my mere fiat the BoM cannot be ancient, is pure fancy. (Let's see, if tu quoque as a form is weak, what can we say of a factually baseless tu quoque ?) We're not directly addressing the merits of the arguments re BoM historicity, notice, but the justification for your approach to the BoM as a claimed ancient text.

You might want to go back and read the hypothetical example I gave of the ethnographer addressing the colonial Spaniard's account of his encounter with the mysterious stranger. She doesn't merely assume the encounter with the stranger didn't occur. (Although imagining that as her only option -- and hence as my claim -- would conveniently allow you to evade the issue with a misguided tu quoque response.) The issue, again, is whether her approach to and analysis of the Spaniard's reported experience and resulting account could properly ignore the plain differences in content and circumstances. To me, the rather obvious answer is no.

Does she say to her critics, "I don't know what the fuss is about. I'm adopting the very same approach and analysis ("methodology" if you prefer) I applied to the other written accounts of colonial Spaniards regarding Amerindian religious culture"?

Again, note that we're not debating the merits directly, nor would she be with her critics in the above example. Rather, we're considering the status and value of her (and what I take to be your) assertion that because you're adopting the "very same methodology" you would justifiably use in other situations, something significant follows. What is that "something significant"? So far as I can tell, you think that applying "the very same methodology" that you and other ethnographers would (justifiably) apply in other situations somehow also justifies its use when applied to the BoM. (Or in the above example, to the mysterious stranger account.)

To the extent the debate is about justifying a proposed methodology not in the abstract, but as applied to a particular set of problems and issues presented by an individual document, it is question-begging and unhelpful merely to say "I am applying the very same methodology to the BoM (or the mysterious stranger account) as I would and do to other allegedly ancient documents." Knowing you can't stop there, with a descriptive, autobiographical statement, you have to invoke some other, independent and normative standard. You do so by claiming that there is some relevant uniformity and consensus in approach recognized and shared by "ethnographers" or "anthropologists." Problem is, there is no such uniformity and scholarly consensus with respect to the BoM. Hence your understandable resort to "BoM-proxy" examples such as the Grolier text. I'll return to the problems/issues they present, within the framework I set out below, when I have more time.

In the meantime, you may want to reconsider your rather mystifying and repetitive assertion that I'm begging the question of BoM historicity on the merits. We're not even there yet, let me remind you again.

To say that something about the unique or questionable provenance of a document may bear upon the question of its authenticity is not contoversial, but rather obvious. Hold that thought. It's part of a larger conceptual picture that I want to identify.

First level: Are questions of authenticity (a) always determined and (b) solely/exclusively determined by the contents of the document? I expect we agree the answer is no. (For present purposes, "contents" means the sum of all the document's express and implied factual assertions about past events. As distinguished from issues of provenance.)

Second: Are questions of authenticity (a) always determined and (b) solely/exclusively determined by the provenance of the document? I expect we agree the answer is no.

Third: Are questions of authenticity sometimes solely/exclusively determined by the contents of the document? Yes.

Fourth: Are questions of authenticity sometimes solely/exclusively determined by the provenance of the document? Yes.

Fifth level: Are the historical truth-claims of the BoM falsified if its authenticity is (a) cogently disputed/questioned (on grounds of provenance, or otherwise) or (b) underdetermined or

[Addictio]

A few more comments on Brant's previous response illustrate what I was referring to about an aggressive rhetorical offense substituting for defense. Following this statement of mine:

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.

Brant says:

Let's compare the logic

I don't mind, Brant, if you know the difference between caricature and comparison. Apparently not?

I am suggesting that since we have a text it should be treated like any other text and tested as one. This means that it should behave like a text. It should conform to time and space. It should be appropriate to a foreign culture. All of those are testable hypotheses and are pretty standard historical tests.

No person I know of would disagree with anything but the bolded portion of the first sentence. The problem there is that (even all allegedly historical) texts aren't generic. So the remainder of the paragraph doesn't exhaust the types of relevant inquiry. For no apparent reason, you seem to think it does.

Addictio suggests that a superior logic is that since we already "know" that the claim for the origin of the text could not possibly be true, therefore the text cannot possibly be true.

No, but climb up two rungs and perhaps you might arrive at mere caricature.

If one of the concepts of modern scientific study is to test our hypotheses, which of these is testable?

Poor Addictio. Pause ye heartless and shed a tear or two. His very bestest hypothesis -- all spiffed up and ready at last for testing -- is that the BoM cannot possibly be true. But as you weep, consider: Does he need a better brain, or interlocutor?

Notice that Addictio doesn't claim that any of the historical tests applied to the text are incorrect. He isn't claiming that the culture doesn't fit (though he might do that in another post).

Take a deep breath. It's not that your referenced historical tests are incorrect, Brant, it's that they're incomplete. Way out there in the frivolous ozone perhaps, where all texts become generic, the specific types of inquiry you identify (your "tests") may put on airs, as it were, and expand to displace all others. But down here, gravity, armed only with a straight pin, holds sway.

Here the argument has nothing to do with method. It has to do with the initial research assumption.

You've lost focus. My argument here is about your method. See my last post. I have never proposed anything so empty and pointless as an "initial research assumption." Tell me, what would it look like? No, wait, I think it's coming up.

(The brass band I ordered special for the occasion is almost ready to play.) Let's watch for their cue, shall we?

I am saying you test with an open mind and follow the data.

That's it! (Nod, Brant.) The band understands, plays!! Yayy!!

But wait, the Gardnerian brow furrows; the band falls silent, preparing to switch from samba, perhaps, to dirge?

Addictio is saying that you prejudge the conclusion before you begin.

Dimly sensing the enormity of the logical offense (nod again, Brant, these are musicians) the band is eventually moved to tears, and the dirge begins.

But wait (overtime pay for the band?!) it's time to wind things up in silence. A single spotlight shrinks to illluminate only Brant, as he returns to Addictio's quote, above, where he began, shaking his head with disappointment, but firm in his voice and unshaken convictions:

I don't know how [i?] am at dressing that particular rhetoric, but I can tell you that if I ask any scientist of the hard or soft scientists whether a hypothesis should be testable or should begin with a predetermined outcome - I know which one they will select.

Sensing the depth of this weighty thought, and the supporting experience, or just thinking about overtime pay, the band nods.

I don't know why Addictio thinks --

The second french horn detects a slight quaver in the voice, here, but then is known for his sentimentality. (Those six words deep, Addictio doesn't know why, either.)

--that establishing a hypothesis that cannot be tested has any value other than justifying the belief one has before doing the "test."

Thanks, Brant. The plaintive question is both sad and puzzling. If I can find the guy you've been talking to, I'll definitely ask him.

But for now, the band is looking sly, as if the night were still young, and is playing that samba again, real good -- as Sister Joni sed -- real good; for free.

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

One of the techniques I leanred a number of years ago when I was debating in High School was that if I don't have any good evidence I might be able to mount a defense by using ridicule. I see you learned the same lesson.

After all of that we still have the fundamental disagreement:

[brant-previous]

I am suggesting that since we have a text it should be treated like any other text and tested as one. . .

[Addictio]

No person I know of would disagree with anything but the bolded portion of the first sentence.

------------

And there it is again. We can't treat the Book of Mormon seriously. It is predefined in such a way as to make the tools of scholarship moot.

Notice how that assumption colors the list of questions about authentication:

First level: Are questions of authenticity (a) always determined and ( solely/exclusively determined by the contents of the document? I expect we agree the answer is no. (For present purposes, "contents" means the sum of all the document's express and implied factual assertions about past events. As distinguished from issues of provenance.)

One of the other things I learned in High School debate was that you could win a point by winning the way the point is framed. Hence Addictio attempts to frame the question in such a way as to support his hypothesis. The problem is that while the answer to this line of reasoning is always that all data must be considered, the framing of the question moves away from what really happens and toward the conclusion he prefers.

Let's take a recent case of authentication. The provenance of the James ossuary was controversial. Nevertheless, the ossuary itself was tested. The problem, of course, was that the early tests appeared to support authenticity and later ones disproved it.

Regardless of the outcome, it is the procedure that is important. The provenance may have been less than perfect, but that did not lead to any conclusion at all. The ossuary itself was tested. Only after the testing of the artifact itself could one conclusively comment on the nature of the provenance.

In the case of the Histoire du Mechique, the authentication process did look at the circumstances of the translator, but that told the researchers only that he was usually a good translator. That did not, and could not, tell them if what he had translated was authentic. Regardless of circumstances it was not only proper, but imperative to deal with the document.

When the provenance of a document is firm there isn't much need to discuss authenticity. One codex has been found in situ. There is no question that it is authentic (ironically - we can't read it because it is sealed together by age and current techniques can't open it without destroying the paintings on it). Still - there is no need to wonder about authenticity. We really can declare it genuine without reading it.

However, when there is a question of provenance that is the very reason that we have to authenticate the text. Many methods may be used and some are better than others. Sometimes the methods can give a false positive - such as the ossuary. Sometimes they give a false negative, such as the Grolier. Nevertheless, in all cases it is imperative to deal with the artifact because of the circumstances. It is never proper to dismiss the artifact because of the provenance. Were that the case our understanding of the Maya world would be much poorer without the graphic evidence of the pottery that can be authenticated as artifacts but which have no known provenance.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Adicto writes:

Aside to Ben: I expected far better from you. Try focusing on the mysterious stranger example, and reflect on the nature of the methodological disagreement, perhaps in light of the earlier paragraphs, above.

The challenge here, of course, is that this is not our first interaction on this topic. And everytime we engage in this discussion it always ends up in the same place. So, there is nothing new, there hasn't been anything new in quite some time, and I really don't forsee anything new coming from your direction any time in the future.

Ben

[Addictio]

Ben (and Brant):

As far as the subject I've been addressing on this thread goes, Brant's methodology, I don't remember conversing with you. It's certainly true that Brant and I have gone the rounds on this before, though, and perhaps the ratio of wheel-spinning to traction is destined not to improve. What I'm currently hoping for in this here "once more with feeling" discussion with Brant is not agreement so much as improved clarity in my own thinking.

To me, this rather abstract topic is not actually "where the action is," so to speak, on the issues of BoM historicity, which is in the merits of the population-side discussion of the LGT. What remains to be seen (optimistic me) is to what extent these conceptual issues do any practical work, by actually affecting the structure and content of that debate.

Believe it or not, Brant, I think I'm about ready to sum up the nature of the disagreement, and perhaps even the extent to which it matters at the level of the LGT population merits.

[Dan Vogel]

Brant,

Clearly you don't know what I mean. I understand the science as well as most non-scientists. That simply isn't the point I was making. The point is that insisting that it doesn't work creates an attitude of superiority when we write about those people that denigrates their experiences - and fundamentally misunderstands them.

It is certainly my anthropology background speaking, but I don't think we really understand people until we see the world through their eyes. In their eyes all of this worked. We may need to explain why it worked, but if your fundamental approach to the past is that we have it right and they have it wrong we cannot produce anything that really makes those people live for modern readers.

I understand perfectly well what it means to understand the past on its own terms. This is exactly the point I am trying to make with you about the workings of the stone. Within the magic worldview, it made perfect sense for the stone to produce the translation. It made no sense that JS was involved. That is your modernist perspective. So it is you who are trying to change the past to serve needs in the present.

You certainly have no qualms rejecting JS

[Brant Gardner]

Dan:

You are correct that there isn't much reason to carry on the arguments that will essentially have us restating the same positions. However, I did finally have a light bulb go off when I read:

You don

[Dan Vogel]

Brant,

I finally figured out the reason why you keep bringing up anachronisms and insisting that the Book of Mormon was read from the stones. The problem with anachronisms is that they are deadly for any document claiming antiquity if, and this is the important if, they are claimed to be originals.

If you can claim that Jospeh read the text, then you can claim that God provided the text and hence couldn't make a mistake and therefore the anachronisms really are "original." Brilliant idea.

Of course I think that it has several flaws in it, but at least I understand why you are so intent to hold both the reading mode of translation and the anachronisms. Only if you can hold the first can the anachronisms be really damning.

It also explains why we have such a hard time communicating about the translation method. You, as a non-believer, really want to place the translation at God's hands. You are fighting for a supernatural origin so you can prove your naturalistic explanations.

On the other hand, I am a believer and I want to see a naturalistic explanation for the miraculous events. What a wonderful turn of expectations.

You are arguing for angels and I am arguing for natural processes. Who would have thought.

The point that I

[Brant Gardner]

Dan:

I don

[Dan Vogel]

Brant,

I don

[Zeitgeist]

Brant,

It is difficult to know where to go from here. I feel like the conversation has broken down a little, despite some really fabulous posts. This seems a good place to pause and consider what has been said.

I am curious what people think about this thread, especially the last few pages? Any commetns or thoughts from others?

Zeitgeist

[Zeitgeist]

Bump'in the thread. Bump Bump.

Zeitgeist

[Zeitgeist]

Bump.

[Dale]

Hi,

There's only two way's to handle problems in the Bible, or Book of Mormon. One is to admit the errors in religious texts or hope a proposed solution works. The answer I see on either solution doesn't make me not want to use the book as scripture. I enjoy the Book of Mormon. Proposed solutions might not work. Person's should be big enough to admit solutions have been proposed but they may not work. I just see that my faith needs to hinge on solutions. I am impressed when LDS like Van Hale can believe the book 19th century & keep their faith anyway.

I like the proposed solutions, but they may be like some solutions I see for Biblical reliability. Some may work & some may not. It boils down intellectually as to whether you favor the problem over the solution. On issues like evolution & can't favor creationism over evolution. The earth might be older than the Bible say's. I choose to believe in things like creation based on faith not solutions that may or may not work.

The solutions & some are covered in FAIR brochures really are useful in presenting possibilities to people opposed to the Book of Mormon. To me if others can defend the Bible using the solutions so can I use FAIR & FARMs resources. If the conversation is dignified I can admit the possibility the Book of Mormon is wrong about horses. No pride is hurt by admitting to problems that may or may not have valid solutions.

The only time one will change faiths on this issue if one has spiritual needs not being met by ones own Restoration faith. I lean Community of Christ. Known until the name change as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I like my faith. I considered becoming Evangelical once, but the issue of horses wouldn't cause me to disbelieve the Book of Mormon. I wasn't convinced that Martin Luther reformed the church. I felt his Justfication idea was superimposed on early Christianity. I see no reason to jump ship over the horse issue alone.

I heard Van Hale on cassette debate many critics. Since he disbelieves their theology I am sure he feels he can stick it out where he is. I can't speak for him but that's my guess. That experience is atleast my experience.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Confidential Informant]

I am curious what people think about this thread, especially the last few pages? Any commetns or thoughts from others?

Personally, I've found this thread to be most revealing in anumber of ways.

First, maybe I'm just stupid (several people on the board have raised the possibility from time to time) but I just don't see what all the stories about the method of translation have to do with the question of whether or not the Book of Mormon is an authentically ancient translation of a more ancient work or not.

Either it is or it isn't and whether or not Whitmer, Cowdrey, Harris, Emma or anyone else was completely correct about the translation method seems to be to be, at best, irrelevant.

If it is a translation of an ancient text, then it ought to behave like one and there is only one way that I can think of to test that... and that's the way Brant has approached it. I've said this several times, the text ought to inform our view of the translation process, not the other way around.

I believe Brant is right in his observation about why there is such insistance on nailing down the exact method of translation before dealing w/ the text and I think I mentioned this briefly in an earlier post.

The argument is based on the fundamentalistic assumption that if Joseph was merely the reader, then the translation itself came straight from God and thus, could have no errors. Therefore, any anacronisms found in the text would, by their very nature, disqualify the text.

But on what is that assumption based? Is their any other examples of "divinely" inspired (or even divinely dictated) translations that can be used to support such inerrantist assumptions? I see none.

That being the case, how can Brant do anything else beside what he has already done?

Moreover, how is Brant's research thesis which accepts the Book of Mormon as authentic any better or worse than Dan's in his book which treats it as a fraud?

Brant's initial thesis is just that, an assumption, but a testable one. Even starting from that assumption, if the book is indeed a fraud, as Dan proposes, then it should not be able to pass the tests that Brant has set up. It should not accurately reflect authentic mesoamerican power structures (i.e., mesoamerican kings depending on the support of various royal lineages to maintian power, etc). It should not so closely mirror mesoamerican social structures. It should not mirror mesoamerican warfare practices or, more importantly, reflect when major changes in warfar practices occurred.

The problem, as far as I can see, is that it does. It acts like an authenic ancient text. But there is still the issue of those anacronisms. But the problem is anacronisms is two fold: First, in many cases they represent an argument from silence. For example, horses. All it takes is the discovery of a single horse to prove this isn't an "anacronism." And since they have found equine bones in the proper archeological strata and since it appears that the initial tests on the bones are showing that maybe, just maybe, those bones date to the right time period, then suddenly that's not an anacromism anymore and it becomes a very powerful bit of evidence in favor of the text.

Interestingly, this even would do nothing to damage Brant's arguments, (except maybe to show that the translation was a bit "tighter" than maybe he has previously assumed).

But the other anacronisms (assuming arguendo that they are such) can be explained using the same tools that ethnohistorians have used on other documents. Why do candles and banking practices, unknown in the first century AD still appear in the KJV bible? They are relics of the translation. If that is the case, then why can't such anacronisms be explained the same way in the B of M? Well, they can, unless of course you insist that God himself translated the book, etc.

Finally, Dan insists that the B of M hasn't "earned" the right to be treated as other texts. I'd be curios to see what authority agrees with him on that assessment. Can he cite a single scholar in a relevant field that believes that a text must "earn" its right to be treated like any other text? I suspect he cannot. Moreover, I suspect that any scholar in a relevant field would scoff at such a notion. The text should be treated exactly like any other text. If its a fraud, then doing so will prove it.

In short (and I"m never very good at short posts unless I'm being sarcastic), Brant's approach is, in my mind, the one that makes the most sense. It is the one I think that every informed scholar would support. It is the one that, I think, practical experience shows is used. In the end, I don't care what anyone really "said" about the translation. I care if the translation accurately reflectes the time and place that it claims to and whether or not it behaves like a text from that period should. The answer to that question sheds more light on what the witnesses said rather than vice versa.

C.I.

[Guest ScottieSLG]

Why does everyone keep saying that Nephi saw an animal he didn't recognise, so he named it Horse??

Horse is mentioned multiple times throughout the BoM by many different authors.

Wasn't it Ammon that went to get the king's horse and chariot ready after he smote off the arms?

Also, wouldn't the Lamonites have a different word for horse than the Nephites? Shouldn't Ammon have told King Lamoni he was getting his grumptellia and chariot ready?

[Teetering]

I find this dicussion interesting and helpful in clarifying the positions. Brant, could you explain for me how you see the translation occurring in a "naturalistic" manner, as you suggested earlier. Do you believe that ideas came into his mind which he then put into words chosen by which he believed reflected those ideas? Sorry if this has been addressed elsewhere and I have missed it. I have not yet read all of the comments, but plan to do so shortly.

[MAsh]

I'm going to throw in my 2 cents. I've been reading this interesting thread but haven't (don't) have much time to participate.

I think that Dan & Brent can _both_ be right.

Since JS's face in a hat would exclude all light, & since the seer stone couldn't have been more than few inches away from his face, there is no way he could "read" any characters on the stone (& stones don't display words). The stone was a means to an end -- a tool used by God because he knew that JS (et all) believed in the powers of said stone (kind of like God could have used any stick/rod/twig/etc. for Aaron to wield with Moses' direction. The power came from God, not the rod, but God used what would have been familiar to Moses/Aaron).

So, if JS couldn't actually "read" writings on the stone, from whence the words dictated to Oliver.

It seems the most likely to me that JS recieved impressions/images/concepts/etc. that revealed the intent of the plates. JS formulated (worked out in his mind) these impressions into 19th century English. Once this formulation was made it appeared in his mind as words/sentences/paragraphs. Kind of like when you look at a bright light/image & close your eyes, you see the burned image in your eyelids. This could be a real mental image conjured in the dark in JS's mind's eye -- something he could really focus on & "read." God could've caused JS's English formulation to appear in his mind while he dictated it to a scribe. (According to Royal Skousen it appears that there was a specific range of words that JS was able to "see" & dictate before moving on).

To me, this scenario resolves the problems I see with Dan's argument & makes the most sense from a naturalistic perspective. But... perhaps I've overlooked something.

Mike Ash

MormonFortress.com