Did Joseph Smith understand the Book of Mormon?

[_Addictio]

Hi again, folks.

Beastie, I agree with the point you're making. At its most basic, I'd say, it's something like: Both the Loose and Tight translation models, if they are to have any consistent, useful content at all, have to endorse (entail) certain claims about the translation process and how that process produced the English text and deny (preclude) certain other claims.

So when we turn to the Loose model (that "slutty" variant is such a hoot!), as you point out, certain explanations for the content of the text's language have to be endorsed by that model, and some precluded. And one that seems to be precluded by the Loose model and endorsed by the Tight model is something like: "Because Joseph Smith was functioning solely as a reader of English words which he merely dictated, it's perfectly reasonable -- even to be expected -- that he wouldn't understand that the narratives actually describe the presence and function of indigenous peoples."

These are important issues, and your points are good ones, seems to me, beastie. But as your post illustrates, what happens when we try to give some kind of definite content to the Loose model? How and to what extent did Joseph Smith's natural cognitive powers and understanding determine the language of the text? Further, what is the relevant "event scenario" that the Loose model is even proposing in the first place? I don't think anyone has ever explained that, including Brant Gardner. Hence California Kid's good-faith, speculative effort and your working hypothesis that some kind of "movie" was being presented, based upon which Joseph Smith composed the narratives.

Unless and until someone like Brant does that for the Loose model, I think it's ultimately going to be fruitless to use the kind of argument you're summarizing here, at least as part of the "historicity" debate. It's just too easy for advocates of the "Loose model" to imagine and shape the event scenario any way they want to. For example, there's no reason they can't imagine that Joseph Smith had certain "divinely enhanced" cognitive powers during the process, but that those powers did not, uhm, "Necessarily result in his power to grasp the full significance of ...." and so on. Or they can rejoin, as I think Brant has before, that the sort of "live film production" version of the Loose-model event scenario you're suggesting isn't what he believes actually happened. As I recall, he was at one time suggesting an event or "process" scenario that somehow involved Joseph Smith's natural language skills and cognitive powers. But who knows what a formal presentation of the "Gardnerian" Loose model will look like.

In any event, I think there's another reason not to expend much time, at present anyway, on critical arguments based upon the unexplained, ill-defined Loose model. The "majority" position/analysis is clearly the one articluated by R. Skousen. His position as head of the "Critical Text" project for the Book of Mormon also ensures that his analysis will be consistent with, and will probably help shape, the content of certain work-products of that project. So to the extent there ever is any "official" position on any of these kinds of topics, it is most likely to be Skousen's, or something much like it.

The best presentation of Skousen's position I know of, which you've probably already read, is the article/book-chapter linked below. If someone knows of a better or more recent one, by the way, I'd be interested to know what it is. Also, I think there was a MA&D thread recently in which DCP and others commented on the status of the critical text project.

Anyway, I'm trying, with mixed success, to spend more time on my own Book of Mormon writing projects, and less time on bulletin boards. (Truth Dancer's above statement about my "articles and books" is the kind of "hot coals placed gently upon the head" comment that reminds me of my priorities. Thanks, TD. The hair and brain tissue eventually grows back. ;-)) So as uhm, "seductive" and stimulating as it is to discuss this kind of stuff here, I need to limit my participation.

Yes, and damn that Metcalfe fella, anyway, for his austere, strong-willed example. When he's not showing up, ya see, he's actually showing off!!

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... chapid=182

[_beastie]

Of course you're right, although, in a way, this phenomenon (a.k.a. the theory that can look like whatever one's needs at the moment demand because it's never fully articulated) is the "elephant in the room" in all discussions about Book of Mormon historicity between believers and nonbelievers. It's a constantly shifting paradigm, as needed. I remember when I first started reading about the slutty versus frigid (snicker) translation theories, I predicted that, one day, apologists would even try to create a theory that allowed them to use BOTH theories, as needed. I knew that would happen because each theory creates serious problems for some "camp" of Book of Mormon apologia. The loose theory creates problems for those who are fond of the supposed linguistic evidences supporting the Book of Mormon (chiasmas, etc_ that require Joseph as reader. The tight theory creates problems for those who want to present a serious argument for the mesoamerican setting of the Book of Mormon. So of course, one day, someone would get the idea to create some theory that allowed for BOTH. And, sure enough, eventually believers started just that sort of speculation.

I have read Skousen's article, and agree that the bulk of contemporary evidence clearly describes Joseph as a reader. If that is the preferred model among apologists, then they are creating a real problem for people like Brant Gardner and John Clark.

As I recall, he was at one time suggesting an event or "process" scenario that somehow involved Joseph Smith's natural language skills and cognitive powers. But who knows what a formal presentation of the "Gardnerian" Loose model will look like.

I think this is the most likely candidate, too.... but, really, how is one supposed to tell the difference between this process and just, well, you know, mundane authorial inspiration? Ya mean he sat down and a story, words, formed in his mind???? AMAZING. It must be God. I mean, how else could a human being sit down and have a story and words form in his/her mind????

But this does seem consistent with (my understanding of) how Joseph Smith tended to work. For example, feelings of attraction and desire for a female became a message from God that she had been "given" to him in the pre-existence. So of course if he sat down and thought of a story, that could just as feasibly be God giving it to him. He tended to conflate his thoughts and needs with God, anyway. (assuming he believed in his own divine mandate) If he was PO'd at someone, God ended up being PO'd at them too! Go figure.

PS - I'm glad you're using your time and talents more productively. Did you get some sort of shot for that? And where can I get one? ;)

[_Dr. Shades]

I agree that it seems that Joseph didn't understand the Book of Mormon. To my knowledge, he rarely even preached from it.

Not to derail the thread, but both of the above confirm, for me, the truth of the Spalding/Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon origins. Joseph just read from the manuscript (no need worry about understanding it), then didn't bother to preach from it since he knew it wasn't divine.