Loan shifting the anachronisms away

[Marcus]

Scripture is a term that is meaningful in specific cultural contexts. For the people participating in such a context, accepting a book as scripture means that it bears a certain authority and will be used as a source of divine meaning by its believing readers.

That seems a reasonable enough description from a sociological point of view. For me. as you will have gathered, the concept of 'divine meaning', like 'scripture', is a social construct without any objective reference behind it.

I'd like to add that, so far as I can see, whether or not a person is willing to use the descriptor 'scripture' of a text seems to have a great deal more to do with how they were brought up than with any describable characteristics of the content of the text. Thus, early 19th C. protestant Americans were brought up believing that the language of the King James translation of the Bible was associated with 'divine meaning'. It was therefore a clever move of Joseph Smith to compose his 'The Bible: part 2, Nephi and Co,' text in a style as close as he could manage to that of the KJV. Had he written it in current English it would have been much less attractive to converts, even if the actual content had been identical in meaning.

Yes. And it is filled with his grammar and speech quirks, which some try to stuff into an Early Modern English mold. It actually fit the times, perfectly, in my opinion.

[Kishkumen]

That seems a reasonable enough description from a sociological point of view. For me. as you will have gathered, the concept of 'divine meaning', like 'scripture', is a social construct without any objective reference behind it.

Got it. Yes.

I'd like to add that, so far as I can see, whether or not a person is willing to use the descriptor 'scripture' of a text seems to have a great deal more to do with how they were brought up than with any describable characteristics of the content of the text. Thus, early 19th C. protestant Americans were brought up believing that the language of the King James translation of the Bible was associated with 'divine meaning'. It was therefore a clever move of Joseph Smith to compose his 'The Bible: part 2, Nephi and Co,' text in a style as close as he could manage to that of the KJV. Had he written it in current English it would have been much less attractive to converts, even if the actual content had been identical in meaning.

Agreed, except that the idea of making a collection of canonical texts for Christianity goes back to the second century CE and is probably inspired by Marcion's collection of books. In Greco-Roman antiquity, certain texts were thought to be divinely inspired or their authors were thought to be, and the texts were thus treated as bottomless wells of divine meaning that people could extract all kinds of meanings from. Some Christians use the Bible in this way. Mormon emphasis on pondering on the scriptures and applying them to one's own life belong in this tradition. Your point about the archaic language is important, and in antiquity you achieved the same effect by rendering your oracles in the language of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey.

[Chap]

Frankly, for me the problem is not so much the notion of 'scripture' but the notion of a deity of the type favoured by the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) - you know, the omnipotent, omniscient and eternal old guy ... who just never happens to appear to us in person (is he too busy? worried his voice will deafen us? just a bit shy?), but leaves it to a succession of human beings to speak on his behalf.

Or that's what they have all claimed ... unfortunately there appears to be no reliable way of finding out whether their claims are true. Well, a lot of the time, it isn't so much a question of deciding rationally whether Guy X is telling the truth about his right to speak with the authority of you-know-who, but more a question of what Guy X or his followers will do to you if you don't do what Guy X (sorry, the old guy up there) is telling you to do. Of course, it is very wicked to question the word of <some guy who claims to represent the old guy>, because it's just like disobeying the old guy himself. I mean, isn't it?

There are times when I really dream of a world in which the whole Abrahamic protection racket never got started ...

Yeah, He's an "old guy up there". Makes it sound like you have something against someone older than you? Someone that exists in time and space beyond your own?

Does that make it a non starter?

Not at all. As you well know, the concept of the Abrahamic deity as essentially an old guy with a white beard was created by Christian iconographers long before I was even thought of. But since that deity, as creator of the universe and the laws governing it is generally seen by most theologians to be outside time and space, the 'old guy' picture, is just a bit silly, don't you think? Of course I don't think that there is any entity of this kind at all, so if the idea of an old guy with a white beard helps you get out of bed in the morning, go for it.

By the way, it's an axiom of belief, in LDS thought, that this 'old guy'...God..."appear[ed] to us in person" when He appeared to Joseph Smith. So to say that it didn't happen is your belief. Granted, for those that believe God appeared to Joseph Smith, that is their belief.
[...]

'Axiom of belief' is it? Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall we only have Smith's word for it that anything at all out of the ordinary ever happened to him that time in the woods, let alone a direct sight of your deity. In that, he is no better and no worse than all the other guys who have proclaimed "Hey! God isn't free to talk to you at the moment, so he has sent me to tell you what he wants you to do, so you'd better listen up real good or you will be in bad, bad trouble".

Funny, isn't it, that so many religious groups think that their special guy is the one who really, really, did have a direct line to their deity? (And of course all the others didn't, of course.)

[MG 2.0]

Yeah, He's an "old guy up there". Makes it sound like you have something against someone older than you? Someone that exists in time and space beyond your own?

Does that make it a non starter?

Not at all. As you well know, the concept of the Abrahamic deity as essentially an old guy with a white beard was created by Christian iconographers long before I was even thought of. But since that deity, as creator of the universe and the laws governing it is generally seen by most theologians to be outside time and space, the 'old guy' picture, is just a bit silly, don't you think? Of course I don't think that there is any entity of this kind at all, so if the idea of an old guy with a white beard helps you get out of bed in the morning, go for it.

By the way, it's an axiom of belief, in LDS thought, that this 'old guy'...God..."appear[ed] to us in person" when He appeared to Joseph Smith. So to say that it didn't happen is your belief. Granted, for those that believe God appeared to Joseph Smith, that is their belief.
[...]

'Axiom of belief' is it? Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall we only have Smith's word for it that anything at all out of the ordinary ever happened to him that time in the woods, let alone a direct sight of your deity. In that, he is no better and no worse than all the other guys who have proclaimed "Hey! God isn't free to talk to you at the moment, so he has sent me to tell you what he wants you to do, so you'd better listen up real good or you will be in bad, bad trouble".

Funny, isn't it, that so many religious groups think that their special guy is the one who really, really, did have a direct line to their deity? (And of course all the others didn't, of course.)

I can't say that if I was in your shoes I might not entertain the same notions and look at those that believe in a personal God in who's image we are created as being 'brainwashed' in one form or another. What we see in the world definitely allows for that worldview.

I can only speak for myself when I say that there is really nothing else that makes more sense to me than a personal God. That is, one in whom humanity as a whole has a connection with and individuals can have a relationship with. That god can take many different forms, granted. It has always been that way. But, if there is a creator God, that God cannot be ALL the gods in their various forms. Periodically throughout history, albeit to somewhat isolated and 'privileged' groups of people it is my belief that God has revealed himself as the Father of all in who's image we are created. Not a god of stone. Not a god of brass or some other substance. Not of god of man's making.

An omniscient God in whom all things are and will be. And we are co-existent with that God. We can progress to become more like Him.

That's the grand and glorious message of the Restoration.

And it is either true, or it isn't. There is no middle ground.

I've asked others here time and again to offer up something to take the place of God that doesn't end up being a dead end and the end of the day (life). I've not yet received a response that has any real meaning beyond the here and now.

Do you have an alternative to the message/meaning/purpose of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

That's the grand and glorious message of the Restoration.

Do you have an alternative to the message/meaning/purpose of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

I have to point out that the Restoration and the Gospel of Jesus Christ are two very different things.

That’s a bit like equating Judaism with Islam.

A Jew would no more accept Islam than a traditional Christian would accept Restorationism.

[I Have Questions]

That's the grand and glorious message of the Restoration.

Do you have an alternative to the message/meaning/purpose of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Stop derailing the thread. This is about loan shifting anachronisms, not a discussion about alternatives to Mormonism. Stay on topic.

[MG 2.0]

That's the grand and glorious message of the Restoration.

Do you have an alternative to the message/meaning/purpose of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Stop derailing the thread. This is about loan shifting anachronisms, not a discussion about alternatives to Mormonism. Stay on topic.

If I'm responding to other posters...that's on topic. Unless, of course, they've gone off topic...then I guess I'm being led down the proverbial rabbit hole.

Chap said something, I responded.

Regards,
MG

[Benjamin McGuire]

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.

I apologize for the delay - I was traveling for the last several days.

I think that the issue isn't just that there isn't this gap - it's that the gap creates the lack of communication. If a critic doesn't engage the translation layer, then the believer has no real need to respond to the critic. If we are discussing the interaction between apologist and critic, then any criticism which doesn't at least superficially accept the idea of a translation doesn't go anywhere. This is not to say that the perspective that Marcus takes - that the text is a modern romance - isn't rational.

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.

And this sort of reiterates the point. I don't think that there is anyone who contests this idea - that the English text we have comes from a 19th century America (the exception to this might be those who take the EME argument to an extreme).

If the text is a 19th century production - even if you believe that it may be based on an ancient source (as a believer), the anachronism question is no longer simple. I am not suggesting that every anachronism claim is simple - or that it can be simply dealt with by suggesting translation is playing a role. At the same time, I think that in that dialogue over simple claims about anachronisms, the apologetic response is also lacking. By also not taking the translation layer seriously, we get the same sort of simplistic arguments that no critic would ever accept.

[Benjamin McGuire]

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."

I think that complexity can be a problem because it is a bit of an ambiguous term. A large chunk of my published material engages the complexity of the text. I generally use that term to refer to the way that the text engages in dialogue with other text. One of the densest sections of the Book of Mormon in terms of this way of looking at it is the Book of Jacob. The entire book is framed by Psalm 95 - and the text quotes from it several times. It also engages Deuteronomy 17 and 18. The general theme of the entire work is that the Nephite group was able (like Moses) to get a glimpse of their promised land, were forced back into the wilderness, and were waiting for whatever requirements were necessary for them to be able to leave the wilderness to return to their promised land. It is rich with allusion and intertextual references. This is a complex text - and the intertextual references aren't merely window dressing - reading the text and understanding the intertext has a profound impact on the way that you understand the text. This doesn't particularly require, though, that the text be a translation of an ancient source. You can read it quite effectively as a commentary on the Old Testament passages. And the sections of the Old Testament that the text engages are sections that are regularly engaged in other literature - and we can compare them.

Too often, the idea of complexity is couched, I think, in ideas like chiasmus - which in many ways is just a matter of choosing how to format the text. This sort of complexity is really problematic in these kinds of arguments.

[Physics Guy]

While I personally don't think there ever was an ancient text to be translated into the Book of Mormon, I agree that there's no point in discussing an apologist's theory about translation without taking the theory seriously. One might take the theory seriously in order to demolish it, if one could, but just saying Nope to the translation theory isn't a discussion.

Part of taking the idea of translation seriously, though, seems to me to be asking a translation to really be a translation. I could pick up a copy of the Iliad in Greek and claim to translate it into English, but if I turn the Iliad into a hard-boiled detective story by interpreting the funny little squiggles in ways that I'm just making up, then I don't think my so-called translation is really a translation at all. It's just a story I've made up—even though in this case there really is an ancient text there which I could have translated.

Whether or not the golden plates were real, they're not accessible now the way the Greek Iliad is, so we can't tell just by comparing whether the Book of Mormon is a close translation or a wild one. If an apologist tries to explain away anachronisms by appealing to translation artefacts, however, then I think they have to make sure that their proposed mechanisms really make sense for a translation. To invoke code switching in ways that don't actually make sense for a translation is to take a big step towards calling something a translation when it really just isn't one. If the relationship between the absent original and the available English version becomes too strained and arbitrary, the so-called translation theory can degenerate into a mere refusal to say the word "fiction".

There are lots of different kinds of translations that do still count as translations. Some aim for closer fidelity, others for smoother reading in the target language; some deliberately try to convey some flavour of the original language even if it sounds odd in translation. So Book of Mormon apologists may well be able to make some kind of case. They can't just get away with anything and everything by appealing to translation, though. If we're going to take a translation theory seriously, it has to be a serious theory that is really about translation, and not just a get-out-of-anachronism-free card.

That's why I'm not impressed by the argument that the English Book of Mormon might use "horse" to refer to some other animal because Nephites used the Hebrew word for "horse" to refer to some other animal. If that was what the Nephites did, then the word in question was the Nephite word for tapir or deer or whatever, not a Nephite word for horse, and no genuine translation would render it into English as "horse" just because of the Hebrew etymology of the Nephite word. If apologists would have it otherwise, then it seems to me that they are the ones that aren't taking translation seriously.