Loan shifting the anachronisms away

[Gadianton]

Sorry, I deleted, it wasn’t clear enough; will try again later

[Moksha]

Speaking of anachronisms, did you know that mini-mammoths were still around up to 4000 BC when the Lamanites were at Wrangel Island north of Siberia?!!! How could Joseph have known? Talk about the truth of the Book of Mormon.

These same Lamanites later crossed the Bering Land Bridge and made their way to the Delmarva Peninsula. And now you know the rest of the story.

[Marcus]

Sorry, I deleted, it wasn’t clear enough; will try again later

I understand! Can't wait, I really liked your comparison to analysis of the book of Daniel.

[Gadianton]

When I go back and read a little more I think Ben has been more clear about his position than I'd assumed and so my questions or points wouldn't have clarified anything he hasn't already answered. Marcus's posts have been helpful to spot those clarifications, else I would have missed them.

I think Ben's overall point, which is similar to Brant's, is that because of translation layers, we can't say much of anything about the text. Ben does assert that critics as well as apologists seem not to appreciate the significance of the translation layer.

I'm sympathetic to Marcus's objections, that there is no reason to believe there is a source text, and so there is no translation layer. The English text, the only thing we have reason to believe exists, is thoroughly anachronistic, and animal references are just convenient examples. I almost want to say that it's a sly move by apologists to keep the discussion focused on the low-hanging fruit, because there is a hope that one day horses could be discovered, and what an undeserved boon that would be to the apologists, given that it's a sliver of the anachronistic issues with the text. There is a parallel example for the Bible, with Abraham and camels.

A competing theory to the plates theory is Solomon Spaulding translated writings on parchment in Latin that resulted in English text that Rigdon and Smith stole and produced the Book of Mormon with, a text longer than Manuscript Found, and one that witnesses recall seeing in an old hair trunk. (I may be off on some details) Suppose I believe this theory. I have a competing textual layer. Without having those original Latin scrolls, we really can't say anything about the text. We don't know if horse came from Spaulding, Smith, Rigdon, or even an earlier manuscript that Spaulding's Latin writings were produced from is on the table. But that doesn't seem like a very strong argument against the basic critical stance that the English text we have is anachronistic to any other time and place than 19th century America.

Granted, for believers in the plates, the basic critical stance may not be persuasive. Then again, the Church sure does discourage pursuit of any critical information and for good reason, as it's not too hard to find believers who have been persuaded otherwise. If a believer is strongly committed by faith to plates and learns of these translation layer arguments, then it's possible that such a believer will not be easily convinced by anachronisms. I can offer a reductio ad absurdum in the form of the hypothetical Spaulding Latin manuscript, and point out that no apologist would spend five minutes entertaining any theories about that (likewise they'd never spend 5 minutes on the myriad of alleged sealed portion translations), and so the basic critical stance doesn't need to be seen as unnecessarily dismissive or rude, but something the believer will have sympathy for if it regards a competing theory of the same kind as their own about plates.

[Kishkumen]

The Book of Mormon was composed by Joseph Smith in the late 1820s. Full stop. Anyone who claims differently must produce the evidence to back up their position. No one is obliged to believe that Smith found gold plates and translated them into the Book of Mormon. No one is obliged to believe in the existence of ancient Jaredites, Nephites, Lamanites or anything else described in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is very clearly the product of the mind of a semi-educated Anglo-American Christian of the nineteenth century.

That said, I can see people accepting the Book of Mormon as scripture in the way some accept the Bible as scripture.

[drumdude]

The Book of Mormon was composed by Joseph Smith in the late 1820s. Full stop. Anyone who claims differently must produce the evidence to back up their position. No one is obliged to believe that Smith found gold plates and translated them into the Book of Mormon. No one is obliged to believe in the existence of ancient Jaredites, Nephites, Lamanites or anything else described in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is very clearly the product of the mind of a semi-educated Anglo-American Christian of the nineteenth century.

That said, I can see people accepting the Book of Mormon as scripture in the way some accept the Bible as scripture.

What do you make of the counter claim from DCP that puts the burden of proof on the critic to explain away the witnesses and the complexity of the Book of Mormon?

[Chap]

The Book of Mormon was composed by Joseph Smith in the late 1820s. Full stop. Anyone who claims differently must produce the evidence to back up their position. No one is obliged to believe that Smith found gold plates and translated them into the Book of Mormon. No one is obliged to believe in the existence of ancient Jaredites, Nephites, Lamanites or anything else described in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is very clearly the product of the mind of a semi-educated Anglo-American Christian of the nineteenth century.

That said, I can see people accepting the Book of Mormon as scripture in the way some accept the Bible as scripture.

I agree with your succinct characterisation of the text of the Book of Mormon.

... the obvious fact the Book of Mormon is a not very effective attempt by a relatively uneducated early 19th century American person to write in the style of the King James translation of the Bible into English.

But please clarify - what do you mean by 'accepting <some body of writing> as scripture'? Does that imply some kind of belief that the content of the writing in question embodies some kind of message from a deity? Or what? I am not trying to catch you out - I really am not sure what you mean.

Whatever your answer, I find the group of collections of texts now known as 'the Bible' much more interesting to read than the Book of Mormon, since the Bible contains the creations of many writers living in different ages and with different aims and assumptions, whereas the Book of Mormon appears to be no more than what came out of one single mind in upstate New York in the early 19th century.

[Marcus]

...the Bible contains the creations of many writers living in different ages and with different aims and assumptions, whereas the Book of Mormon appears to be no more than what came out of one single mind in upstate New York in the early 19th century.

Exactly my thought. This product of "one single mind," already proven to be derivative of so many other writings of his time, just tells me he was a master at coalescing and reproducing the popular opinions of his time.

[Moksha]

People made a big deal about including the expression "Leeloo Dallas Multipass". That was certainly no anachronism back in 1830. How could Joseph have known?!!! It sounded rather Adamic. Give Joseph a break.

"Klaatu barada nikto" as the Nephites would say.

[Doctor Steuss]

The Book of Mormon was composed by Joseph Smith in the late 1820s. Full stop. Anyone who claims differently must produce the evidence to back up their position. No one is obliged to believe that Smith found gold plates and translated them into the Book of Mormon. No one is obliged to believe in the existence of ancient Jaredites, Nephites, Lamanites or anything else described in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is very clearly the product of the mind of a semi-educated Anglo-American Christian of the nineteenth century.

That said, I can see people accepting the Book of Mormon as scripture in the way some accept the Bible as scripture.

What do you make of the counter claim from DCP that puts the burden of proof on the critic to explain away the witnesses and the complexity of the Book of Mormon?

I apologize for weighing in, as my gray matter is nowhere near as expansive as Kish's, but for me, the "complexity" thing requires such limited categorization exclusions as to make it meaningless as a defense of the divine nature of the book. It's only impressively complex if you progressively exclude other books as counter-examples. To put it on a pedestal of complexity, you essentially have to reduce any comparative competition to holy writ produced primarily by oral transmission. I apologize for dragging out my favorite example (as I'm an endless fanboy) for complexity, but Tolkien's books are infinitely more complex and impressive. So much so, that it seems silly to even try to compare their complexity. It's like comparing a toddler's babblings to the monologues in Chekhov's "The Seagull."

Just taking something like Lhammas. Tolkien created a fictional book of sociolinguistics for various languages spoken during the First Age (there were multiple ages, each with distinct history, leading to Dagor Dagorath**) of Middle-Earth. The Book of Mormon gives us a passing reference to Reformed Egyptian, and a few unique words. Tolkien created entire languages, merely as backdrop to the world he created. He created new mythologies, as well as borrowing and building upon existing mythologies. New, unique "doctrines," gods, "prophets," etc.. All within a complex framework of an entire world, intricately woven together in a near seamless way. With small factoids given in passing in previous books re-emerging later in a nonchalant way to give deep meaning to a given character's action.

The so-called complexity of the Book of Mormon loses all of its impressiveness the moment you allow it to be what it claims to be (an intricately compiled history, from various written chronicles, with the theological and moral teachings of multiple societies, spanning generations, often directly led by men who purportedly communed with an all-knowing deity). On the footing of what it claims to be, its impressive complexity fades away. Don't get me wrong, I don't share Mark Twain's overall summation; I think it's incredibly impressive, for what it is and how it was produced. When compared to other books though, its impressiveness starts to wane.

**ETA: Just an added thing. Dagor Dagorath is only in manuscripts that have been published posthumously by his son. That's how incredibly complex it all is. There are myths, histories, maps, characters, etc., that were created to make the whole world come together, but were never published. Like a real world, where other people, myths, etc. are a foundation to other events and things, but you don't necessarily hear about them because they were so commonplace to the participants in the story that it felt unnecessary to convey them to the audience.