Whack a Mole, err. Horse

[_Enuma Elish]

Hello Blixa,

I'm not being flip here. I'm actually kind of curious about what sends one down this scholarly path as an addendum to religious belief.

I certainly don’t pretend to have all the answers. I’m just trying to make sense of what appears in the text as a believer.

The Book of Mormon has a variety of subtle textual and cultural links with the ancient Near East that I see as evidence for its authenticity. However, the Book of Mormon also admittedly contains anachronisms that would have been inaccessible upon the plates.

Since the "translation" process was revelatory in nature and therefore non-traditional, this issue has never presented a problem for me personally.

In other words, as a believer, I have no problem moving back and forth between what appears to be an authentic literal translation taken from the ancient plates from what appears to be, from my perspective, an inspired anachronistic insertion.

Best,

--DB

[_Blixa]

Thanks You explained things a bit differently than I would have expected.

I would have thought "revelation" would preclude the need for (historical, archaeological, linguistic and so on) proofs and evidences. Whereas you seem to be saying than belief in revelation leaves the door open to many possible ways to make sense of things.

I hope I've made clear summary of your point, if I've misunderstood please correct me.

[_beastie]

Hi, David,

While interesting and informative, I'm missing how your horsemen example could possibly apply to the Book of Mormon, under any translation theory. Let's look at the two theories, formally opposing, but now the trend seem to be to (conveniently) blend them into one as you have done (ie, he used both, switching back and forth) and their explanatory power in regards to your parash example. This is based on the idea that the Nephites used the same word for "horse" and "horsemen".



1 - Traditional word by word - God looks at the Nephite version of parash. God tells Joseph Smith to translate it as "horse", while knowing it should be "horsemen".

2 - Unexplained process which allows Joseph Smith to be a more proactive translator who makes mistakes - Joseph Smith isn't even looking at the specific words and pulling out an english translation to begin with. So how could Joseph Smith look at "parash" and translate it as "horse" instead of "horsemen"? He doesn't even know the original language to begin with.

Help me understand why you think this "parash" has any explanatory power in regards to the Book of Mormon horse conundrum.

At a Church conference in 1831, Hyrum Smith invited the Prophet to explain more fully how the Book of Mormon came forth. Joseph Smith responded that “it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon; and…it was not expedient for him to relate these things” (HC 1:220).

Yes, I understand Joseph Smith didn't make comments about the process himself. Does this mean we get to ignore the friendly comments made by witnesses?

Joseph Smith also was silent on his own practice of polygamy, yet we accept that contemporary witnesses and their records reveal reliable information about that process.

One of the problems I have with the "loose" translation theory is that it essentially strips the text of author meaning. Here's one example that I have used in the past:

If Joseph Smith was utilizing some sort of "loose" process which allowed him to make errors in inserting anachronistic items and ideas in the ancient text, then this can be applied to literally anything within the text. Perhaps Jesus never really did appear to the Nephites, and it was actually the appearance of an ancestoral Mesoamerican god during a blood-letting chant. Joseph Smith simply translated it as "Jesus" and inserted his "Jesus" ideas due to the loose translation process.

Do you get my point? The text is meaningless, except as a Rorschach ink blot test.

But, as I stated in my essay, I am perfectly willing to discuss the Mesoamerican issues using the "loose" translation theory. Unless one embraces fully the loss of any original meaning which I explained above, which no believers do, although it seems logical, then the text still offers enough background information that provides context which must correspond to ancient Mesoamerica. The text still fails miserably.

I commented here upon what I thought was your somewhat shocking statement that of course the Book of Abraham is not an ancient document, but rather an inspired revelation from a nineteenth century prophet. I believe that this is the only course that holds any hope for those who want to continue to believe the Book of Mormon is "true" in some way.

Of course, it's not going to satisfy everyone, because it is not a solution without its own baggage. (such as Joseph Smith' comments about the origins of the text) But it seems to me that what Book of Mormon apologists are doing now is the old Nibley desperation method of throwing a bunch of spaghetti against the wall and hoping something sticks as a way to buy time.

[_harmony]

In other words, as a believer, I have no problem moving back and forth between what appears to be an authentic literal translation taken from the ancient plates from what appears to be, from my perspective, an inspired anachronistic insertion.

Best,

--DB

You're a smart guy. I'm sure you understand why non-believers have some major problems with the whole concept you just outlined.

If one must view the book through the filter of faith in order to preserve one's belief, perhaps giving more leeway to the author than one normally would, does that open the door to charges of bias and superstition, in the sense that believers don't apply the same standards equally and are therefore less likely to see the problems the non-believers see?

How can you say it appears to be an authentic literal translation from ancient plates, when there are no plates to compare with? How can you say it is an authentic anything, without the source material? A matter of faith, yes, of course, but "authentic"? "literal"? "translation"? "ancient plates"? As if you were testifying as an expert on the witness stand? I"m wondering how you can say that.

[_Enuma Elish]

Hello Blixa,

Thanks You explained things a bit differently than I would have expected.

I would have thought "revelation" would preclude the need for (historical, archaeological, linguistic and so on) proofs and evidences. Whereas you seem to be saying than belief in revelation leaves the door open to many possible ways to make sense of things.

I hope I've made clear summary of your point, if I've misunderstood please correct me.

I certainly believe that when all is said and done, the only way that a person can know whether or not the book is true is through a revelatory experience. Over the years, I have pointed to a lot of issues that I see as “evidence” in support of the Book of Mormon’s ancient authenticity. I have never claimed, however, that any of that evidence proves that the Book is true.

In reality, based upon the way I view God, man, and the universe, the issue of whether or not the Book of Mormon is truly ancient is ultimately irrelevant. Personally, I believe that all truth is relative. It is independent within that specific sphere into which God has placed it (D&C 93:30).

Based upon my own experiences, I believe that God has defined the Book of Mormon as true, so its historicity, or ancient quality, is totally irrelevant for me as a believer.

While I certainly could therefore abandon my belief in literal plates and a literal angel Moroni, notwithstanding its occasional anachronistic insertion (which again I view as inspired), I simply see far too much evidence to support the Book of Mormon’s connection with the ancient Near East for me to reject its basic ancient authenticity.

[_marg]

Personally, I believe that all truth is relative.

Right, you are going to believe whatever you want to believe, despite whether or not your beliefs defy common sense, are extraordinarily ridiculous, lack evidence and have evidence to the contrary. Good critical thinking Elish! If only the entire world thought like that, wouldn't it be wonderful.

[_beastie]

While I certainly could therefore abandon my belief in literal plates and a literal angel Moroni, notwithstanding its occasional anachronistic insertion (which again I view as inspired), I simply see far too much evidence to support the Book of Mormon’s connection with the ancient Near East for me to reject its basic ancient authenticity.

Given the fact that quite a bit was known about the ancient Near East during Joseph Smith' period, this evidence is entirely dependent upon Joseph Smith being the sole author, as well as uninformed as to these issues.

This is why I have never been interested in the Near East connections. in my opinion, the only thing that could persuasively speak for the ancient authenticity of the Book of Mormon is connections to ancient Mesoamerica which could have been completely unknown at the time.

[_Enuma Elish]

Hello Harmony,

You're a smart guy. I'm sure you understand why non-believers have some major problems with the whole concept you just outlined.

Of course non-believers will have major problems with the position I have just outlined. Inevitably on these discussion boards, all of us are forced to subvert the underlining spiritual claims that form the very foundation to all of these issues pertaining to the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, etc.

I don’t claim to be an especially "smart" individual, but the one thing that I suppose that I am smart enough to recognize is that when all is said and done, I do not have all the answers.

I actually believe that the problems that both the non-believer and the believer alike faces with these sorts of challenges can contribute to spiritual growth. True, the non-believer will have major problems in accepting a translation scenario in accordance with my belief. And in the long run, I may or may not be correct.

However, I also believe that as part of our spiritual growth, each of us will encounter contradictions between what appears from our rational perspective to be true from what God tells us via inspiration that he considers very much true.

Other than the sheer interest factor (and of course a desire to provide further contextual meaning to the work), I feel that the true value of identifying evidences that would support the possibility that the Book of Mormon features some impressive ties with the ancient Near East is simply to inspire enough confidence for one to seek further light and knowledge through a revelatory means.

[_harmony]

Personally, I believe that all truth is relative.

Right, you are going to believe whatever you want to believe, despite whether or not your beliefs defy common sense, are extraordinarily ridiculous, lack evidence and have evidence to the contrary. Good critical thinking Elish! If only the entire world thought like that, wouldn't it be wonderful.

You are going to believe what you want to believe too, marg. As are we all. Why shouldn't EE? What defies your version of common sense may not defy someone else's version of common sense. Your world view is not the only world view, and, strangely enough, is not the only world view worth having, at least in the minds of billions of other who don't share your world view. Labeling another's world view as ridiculous is counterproductive to civil discussion... not that that's going to stop you, but still.. it's worth noting.

[_Enuma Elish]

Hello Marg,

Right, you are going to believe whatever you want to believe, despite whether or not your beliefs defy common sense, are extraordinarily ridiculous, lack evidence and have evidence to the contrary. Good critical thinking Elish! If only the entire world thought like that, wouldn't it be wonderful.

No. I'm going to believe whatever God wants me to believe, despite whether or not God's beliefs defy common sense, are extraordinarly ridiculous, lack evidence, and have evidence to the contrary. In view of the fact that I do not have all knowledge, this perpective represents extraordinarly good critical thinking skills and I agree that if we (myself included) could all master the task that the world would be a wonderful place.