Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_Kishkumen]

Finally, the biblical passages extant in the original
manuscript are all dictated; the scribe continues to misspell the
same words in the same way as in other parts of the manuscript.
Joseph Smith did not just hand over a King James Bible, even
an emended one, to the scribe to copy the biblical quotations.
The original manuscript also shows no sign of the biblical
chapter system; instead, the biblical passages are grouped into
larger chapters based on narrative unity. In 1879 Orson Pratt
broke up these larger chapters; and in the case of the biblical
quotations, he made the Book of Mormon chapter breaks agree
with the traditional biblical system, which dates from late
medieval times.24 But Joseph Smith's dictation. although it
includes chapter breaks, ignores the chapter system that would
have been found in every King James Bible of his day.

Nor did he have to just "hand over" an emended KJV to his scribe in order to have used the KJV in his "translation." The fact that he did not maintain the same chapter divisions as the KJV is about as valuable as the insight that he omitted italicized words from his translation of the Bible. It says nothing about the source of the text being divine or from an earlier ancient textual tradition. The same fellow who would leave out italicized words in one instance could be expected to omit chapter divisions as well. He was consistent in omitting elements of what he viewed to be the text's non-ancient apparatus/additions. These changes are, indeed, entirely consistent with Smith's own views regarding human tampering with the "pure" sacred text.

[_spotlight]

The Church goes with what evidence there is...which isn't a whole lot.

Does it include the following evidence?

Arad Stowel sworn: says that he went to see whether prisoner could convince him that he possessed the skill he professed to have, upon which prisoner laid a book upon a white cloth, and proposed looking through another stone which was white and transparent, hold the stone to the candle, turn his head to look, and read. The deception appeared so palpable that witness went off disgusted.

http://www.mormonthink.com/QUOTES/js182 ... js1826.htm

An anecdote touching this subject used to be related by William T. Hussey and Azel Vandruver. They were notorious wags, and were intimately acquainted with Smith. They called as his friends at his residence, and strongly importuned him for an inspection of the "golden book," offering to take upon themselves the risk of the death-penalty denounced. Of course, the request could not be complied with; but they were permitted to go to the chest with its owner, and see where the thing was, and observe its shape and size, concealed under a piece of thick canvas. Smith, with his accustomed solemnity of demeanor, positively persisting in his refusal to uncover it, Hussey became impetuous, and (suiting his action to his word) ejaculated, "Egad! I'll see the critter, live or die!" And stripping off the cover, a large tile-brick was exhibited. But Smith's fertile imagination was equal to the emergency. He claimed that his friends had been sold by a trick of his; and "treating" with the customary whisky hospitalities, the affair ended in good-nature.

http://www.mormonthink.com/witnessesweb.htm

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... tbm_minds/

Key Insight As to Why Facts Won't Change TBM Minds

Ezra Klein from Vox wrote a piece a while back about "How Politics Makes Us Stupid" where he argues that facts rarely change minds on politically charged issues.

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/6/5556462/bra ... -us-stupid

Or for Podcast Listeners: http://traffic.libsyn.com/voxtheweeds/Weeds_Ep_6.mp3

He identifies two key ways of thinking we innately use:

1) Motivated Reasoning - People will push themselves to find the answers they want to have. This is easier than ever with Google, where you can find confirmation for most any point of view you are looking for.

2) Identity Protective Cognition - People tend to think in a way that protects their membership to a group they strongly identify with. These thoughts becomes a form of tribalism.

- Doc

[_Lemmie]

That is obvious to me too, and to anyone who cares to compare the two and think through the implications. Given the blatant nature of this observation, can you think of a good reason why the Church would avoid making mention if it?

Off hand I'd say it would have something to do with the witness accounts as to how the Book of Mormon was translated. The 'Church' would be pretty much guessing/surmising like the rest of us. The Church goes with what evidence there is...which isn't a whole lot. You've got to remember that the Church is going to play it safe. It's not going to go somewhere that might get it into a heap o' trouble. ...

Regards,
MG

It's simple to me. The Book of Mormon is demonstrably not what the Church portrays it as being. From that point on it really doesn't matter what it is, the credibility damage has been done.

I agree with you, ihaq. However convoluted it was expressed, it seems that the NOM position you were responding to expresses a similar sentiment. That is new to me. Is it the common position for NOMs to consider "the Church" to be "pretty much guessing/surmising" about how the Book of Mormon came about, and therefore careful to not say too much in order to not get in a "heap o' trouble", which I am assuming is due to its inability to support supernatural claims?

I wasn't aware that NOMs were quite that jaded about church-published doctrine. Is being a NOM purely a social distinction at this point?

[_grindael]

We then throw in the fact that there are multiple voices speaking independently in the Book of Mormon. Whether you use Jockers, the BYU study, or the one done at Berkeley. This all comes together while Joseph has his head in a hat looking at a glowing rock.

This is simple desperation. First it is not a "FACT" that there are "multiple voices" coming from the Book of Mormon. It is simply somebody's speculation based on esoteric interpretation of data. And where is the evidence that the rock ever glowed? (There isn't any).

[_tkv]

MG: Disregarding the non-Mormon POV, the text was delivered word-for-word, all the way. If you flip flop between Gardner and Skousen, you'll have a difficult time, just like the LDS essay has a difficult time. But maybe that's what you prefer, being a mental gymnast? Skousen allowed textual evidence to make up his mind (see his 2013 BMAF talk on youtube), over many years.

[_Kishkumen]

MG: Disregarding the non-Mormon POV...

You mean, "non-LDS."

[_canpakes]

Finally, the biblical passages extant in the original
manuscript are all dictated; the scribe continues to misspell the
same words in the same way as in other parts of the manuscript.
Joseph Smith did not just hand over a King James Bible, even
an emended one, to the scribe to copy the biblical quotations.
.

Why would Skousen avoid mention of the more obvious alternative to this scenario?

[_canpakes]

But putting that aside for a moment and looking at the bigger picture, what is the timeline between Smith's supposed grove experience and when dictation of the Book began? Composition of the Book in some detail has never seemed to be such an impossible task for someone who had many years to work on the backstory.

Google search:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=c ... 20timeline

On this page of results can be found a link to Elden Watson's timeline, which I referred to in that conversation a few years back. From it can be calculated that the most productive periods of dictation yielded about 6.5 pages per day. But the overall average was less than half of that, and Smith supposedly had the plates in his possession for about a year and a half of total time. Whether or not the claim is true, a 1.5-year period is certainly enough to pen the Book if no plates existed. Outside of this timeline is another 7 years between it and Smith's claimed grove experience. We're looking at 8.5 total years for Smith to figure out some or all of the details behind the Book, based on his own timeline.

1. We have the claim of a loose translation... except for those portions of the Book which are a very 'tight' translation of Bible segments inasmuch as those portions may be word-for-word repeats of Biblical passages. Why would word-for-word Biblical passages occur with a 'loose' translation? Can't they also be summarized or reworded?

That's a good question. In my post to tkv I suggest that there may more to the translation process than meets the eye. Both critics and believers seem to beat around on the bush on this...along with the church essay. To me, it is obvious that somewhere during the translation process the Bible entered in.

I don't see that critics are beating around the bush on this point much. Most seem convinced that Smith simply used an available Bible to add material to his dictation. If the passages are word-for-word, then this isn't an unlikely scenario, certainly no more so than the exotic scenarios proposed otherwise. And this possibility eliminates Skousen's odd claim posted earlier by tkv about Smith handing the Bible to a scribe vis-a-vis spelling errors.

I will admit to not having explored the expansion and midrash theories in great detail, but it would seem that they both immediately run up against the 'tight translation' described by Smith.

To my remembrance from what I've read when we use the word 'tight' it's to explain the purported 'fact' that Joseph...when all was said and done...dictated words off of the seer stone. But what was going on in the background or in Joseph's mind during that process? The Book of Mormon seems to have a little of this and a little of that. Chaismus, nineteenth century influence, Bible, historical complexity/narrative, etc. And this is all happening 'on the fly' if the witnesses are to be believed.

If one looks at any of Smith's writings, either through the usual sources or newer ones like the JSP, his skill at narrative-on-the-fly seems obvious enough. I've yet to see anything that convinces me that he was not capable of rendering between 3 to 6.5 pages a day of story if he so desired.

Have you seen anything that points to Smith being unable to do this? Any handicap or example of degraded intellect that would illustrate his lack of ability to tell a story of average complexity?

Again, who is the faithful Saint to believe? The Prophet of the Restoration, or an apologist trying to reconcile issues within the text?

At the end of the day, the faithful saint takes it upon faith the the Book of Mormon was translated by the "gift and power of God".

But who do you believe? Smith, or the apologists? And, why?

Here's the other issue that I need your opinion or explanation on: If an expansion or midrash theory is proposed for the Book (of Mormon, Abraham, Moses, etc), then this appears to be an admission or allowance that just about anything can make its way into any of the primary LDS scriptural sources via Joseph Smith, and 'it's all good' at that point.

A good deal more flexibility/fluidity than some my have thought, yes.

A 'fluidity and flexibility' can exist all the same with no prophetic voice and no authorship or persuasion by any deity, if the reader accepts that the author speaks for God regardless of the result, yes?

In other words, nothing ever need be looked at with a critical eye and the reader can therefore assume that every word - whether supposedly directly issued by God or synthesized into a particular passage from bits and pieces of unrelated spiritual persuasion - carries the imprimatur of God. In this way, every and any effort by Smith is accepted and excused without examination or exploration of any intent than the purest, and basically elevating him to an inerrant standard of dictation from God... a standard which is impossible for any mortal to possess.

I think that is why folks such as Hardy, Skousen, Gardner, Welch, Givens, and many others, have dedicated so much time to the "nuts and bolts" of the Book of Mormon text/translation, etc.

Those nuts and bolts are all assumed, from what I can see. There's no 'there', there. Members are asked to take it on faith that Smith translated letter-by-letter, but then something uncomfortable comes up, and suddenly the mechanics (apologists) are adding bits and pieces to the simple machine of the Book, looking for a fix. Keep that up, and what one eventually ends up with is a convoluted contraption criss-crossed with vestigial apparatus that serves no function other than to justify its addition and existence. It leaves one wondering why the simplest claim of creation - the direct and straightforward 'letter-for-letter' translation - is so easily tossed aside by folks who declare strong support for the Book. What is driving that decision? What is forcing that compromise? It honestly begins to feel that at the end of the day, efforts like Skousen's are so much chaff designed to obscure uncomfortable issues that poke at the apologists' hides - otherwise, why conjure unverifiable and bizarre scenarios of committees of dead famous people transliterating other dead pre-Columbians and haphazardly passing the result on to a fellow who is subsequently allowed to freely substitute in whatever the heck he wants to add or change, depending upon his whims or local cultural influence?

Do you have a line in the sand at which point you would reject a supportive Book translation theory? Or is anything game if its aim is to suggest the Book as historically factual? Are there any that you will not accept? I'm asking to try to determine how you approach and digest theories offered up by apologists in general.

[_tkv]

This has some interesting material on the dictation: http://www.whitmercollege.com/topics/dictated-yes

I suppose Skousen didn't mention an obvious alternative because Emma said specifically, shortly before her death, that her husband didn't use any book during the dictation, and because MS evidence supports that statement.

The opposing viewpoint, that Joseph Smith got ideas and he translated them into his own English, cannot be supported by the manuscript and textual evidence. The only substantive argument for this alternative view has been the nonstandard nature of the text, with its implication that God would never speak ungrammatical English, so the nonstandard usage must be the result of Joseph Smith putting the ideas he received into his own language. Yet with the recent finding that the original vocabulary of the text appears to be dated from the 1500s and 1600s (not the 1800s), we now need to consider the possibility that the ungrammaticality of the original text may also date from that earlier period of time, not necessarily from Joseph’s own time and place. Joseph Smith is not the author of the Book of Mormon, nor is he actually the translator. Instead, he was the revelator: through him the Lord revealed the English-language text (by means of the interpreters, later called the Urim and Thummim, and the seer stone). Such a view is consistent, I believe, with Joseph’s use elsewhere of the verb translate to mean ‘transmit’ and the noun translation to mean ‘transmission’ (as in the eighth Article of Faith).