Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[Guest]

Again, the plates were not being used directly during the translation so all bets are off as to exactly what was going on although we do know there was some kind of interactive collaboration/syncing between Joseph's mind and whatever other 'input' there was...and the resultant words seen using the seerstone in the hat.

That statement says it all.
I went through Primary, Seminary, Institute and Gospel Doctrine (Book of Mormon) more times than I car to remember.
So did my family and friends.

Every single one of us growing up was told repeatedly that the plates were used directly during the translation. Student manuals and teacher manuals show images of the plates being used directly during the translation. You cannot throw that glib line out there as if it's been the case all along, because it hasn't. It's only been recently confessed that the Church hasn't been telling the truth about the translation. That members can switch from fully believing the plates were used, to fully believing the plates weren't used without pause about what that means in terms of the integrity of the Book of Mormon, should give people pause.

That it doesn't is staggering.

If tomorrow the Church amends this narrative to say the Book of Mormon was produced by Joseph using various sources as inspiration for the creation of a divine record, sources such as The Late War, Swedenborg, KJV Bible (in a similar way to how the Church is distancing the Book of Abraham from the papyrus), what then? I'm guessing that those people who are today convinced the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be and wasn't translated directly from the plates, will in short order get fully invested in the new narrative with drawing a breath. That's archetypal cognitive dissonance in action.

[Guest]

The Book of Mormon is a channeled text. There were props used to make the channeled text appear more authentic. None of those props are available to us, only the text. Compare the Book of Mormon with other channeled texts produced from Smith's time clear up to the present. There are thousands of them. There are many people who find them compelling and many who find them absurd. We've talked about the Urantians but there is also the "Seth material" produced by Jane Roberts. There were decades of channeled works from spiritualists and Theosophists. There are channeled texts from Mark and Elizabeth Clare Prophet, from Aleister Crowley, there are texts generated within UFO religions, there are the many latter day restorationist revelation texts.

The more that you read of these texts, the more similar they become. They're modern day apocryphal, pseudepigraphic works. They are full of pretentious neohistorical word salad and pseudoscience, couched in a language that resonates with the subcultures of the followers. Recently the works generated by the UFO religions are the most ambitious, since they pretend to communicate principles of physics beyond current human understanding, yet the UFO groups grew out of theosophy and pulp science fiction rather than bona fide scientific investigation; their ridiculous stories about other planets in our solar system are often drawn from Swedenborg and the spiritualists of the mid 1800s. Increasingly they involve wild conspiracy theories of secret histories and alien alliances and vast orchestrated hoaxes.

Fascinating, thank you. Other than a strong sense of left-over embarrassment that I used to be part of that church when the seer stone picture was published last year, I haven't independently given the Book of Mormon a second thought in many years, but this historical context is fascinating. You've given me some intriguing reading topics.

Its an interesting point that the props used to make channeled text end up being unavailable for universal perusal. Viewing behavior in that context, JSJr's antics leading up to and then after the Book of Mormon is produced are just typical con artist technique, even mundane. Nothing miraculous at all.

(Also I see now where the angel, A. Crowley, in Pratchett and Gaiman's book, Good Omens, got his name.)

[_Themis]

Hi Kishkumen,

The problem that I keep coming back to that I haven't been able to get a handle on is HOW did Joseph...assuming that you are correct...compile the writings/views of all these folks into a tidy little place in his brain and then regurgitate it while his head is in a hat and the translation/dictation period is evidenced to have occurred over a relatively short period of time. I've seen folks try and stretch out the dictation period and/or suggest the use of 'crib' sheets while Joseph's head was in a hat, but I haven't really seen that 'fly' any farther than the simple suggestion that, well, this may have been how he did it. Much of the other researched material that I've read over the years seems to agree/suggest that there WAS a short window in which the actually transcribing/dictation took place and that Joseph didn't have access to 'crib' sheets. It was just the stone in the hat.

So anyway, I've heard your point of view a number of times but it seems to me that it takes more 'faith' to go your direction than it does to go with what the historical evidence from witnesses, etc., seems to show. As a result, I still default to the position that I summarized here recently on this thread.

Regards,
MG

Well, mg, since you are wedded to the idea that the composition of the Book of Mormon is miraculous, I doubt anyone will be able to convince you otherwise. But there is nothing inherently miraculous about it. It may be remarkable, or extraordinary, but miraculous? Divine? Your judgment on that is bound to be subjective. The problem is that there are many other remarkable books, some of which remain entirely unexplained and completely opaque. You don't spend your time explaining those, and you may not even be aware of many of them. I doubt you are at all concerned about the question of their origins. Your investment in the Book of Mormon is entirely partisan and it is conducted safely within the boundaries of acceptable LDS discourse. If anyone tries to break you out of that comfortable territory, you retreat to these subjective statements about how miraculous and inscrutable the book's origins are. You believe that any unexplained aspect of the book's composition is proof against a reasonable hypothesis and definitely in favor of a miraculous origin. I doubt very many people who are not of a Restoration background would consider its origins beyond mundane. It would be one thing if the book were good, and were not obviously cribbed from sources like the Bible, but it was. So, where's the miracle? What is there that warrants this programmed aporia you adopt whenever the virus of sensible thought gets anywhere near your cherished testimony?

MG shows some extreme bias, but an extreme bias that is probably what you will see from your average believer. The two main factors I see making up our bias's is our desire to know what is true and our desire for something to be true. It's possible to have both but the more we have a desire for something to be true the more bias we have in protecting that belief. We all have some of both, but on a particular issue how much we have of each will determine how biased we are. Religious beliefs tend to be very important to the believer so the desire for them to be true is usually very high.

[_mentalgymnast]

When the Prophet Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon was “the most correct of any book on earth,”12 he wasn’t speaking of grammar, spelling, and punctuation, as we can clearly see by the many corrections that have been made over the years. He was speaking of the precious truths it contains, including witnesses of Jesus Christ and His gospel that have not changed since they were written by prophets centuries ago. From metal plates to manuscript pages to printed books, these truths have remained unchanged through the centuries.

https://history.LDS.org/article/the-boo ... s?lang=eng

Well, apart from the bit about it coming from metal plates, obviously.

Hi IHAQ, notice that it says, "these truths". Where is the contradiction with anything I've said? Did I say the plates were not important? Or that the 'truths' contained thereon were somehow irrelevant to the publication of the Book of Mormon and the 'truths' contained within its covers?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Hi Kishkumen,

The problem that I keep coming back to that I haven't been able to get a handle on is HOW did Joseph...assuming that you are correct...compile the writings/views of all these folks into a tidy little place in his brain and then regurgitate it while his head is in a hat and the translation/dictation period is evidenced to have occurred over a relatively short period of time. I've seen folks try and stretch out the dictation period and/or suggest the use of 'crib' sheets while Joseph's head was in a hat, but I haven't really seen that 'fly' any farther than the simple suggestion that, well, this may have been how he did it. Much of the other researched material that I've read over the years seems to agree/suggest that there WAS a short window in which the actually transcribing/dictation took place and that Joseph didn't have access to 'crib' sheets. It was just the stone in the hat.

So anyway, I've heard your point of view a number of times but it seems to me that it takes more 'faith' to go your direction than it does to go with what the historical evidence from witnesses, etc., seems to show. As a result, I still default to the position that I summarized here recently on this thread.

Regards,
MG

Well, mg, since you are wedded to the idea that the composition of the Book of Mormon is miraculous, I doubt anyone will be able to convince you otherwise. But there is nothing inherently miraculous about it. It may be remarkable, or extraordinary, but miraculous? Divine? Your judgment on that is bound to be subjective. The problem is that there are many other remarkable books, some of which remain entirely unexplained and completely opaque. You don't spend your time explaining those, and you may not even be aware of many of them. I doubt you are at all concerned about the question of their origins. Your investment in the Book of Mormon is entirely partisan and it is conducted safely within the boundaries of acceptable LDS discourse. If anyone tries to break you out of that comfortable territory, you retreat to these subjective statements about how miraculous and inscrutable the book's origins are. You believe that any unexplained aspect of the book's composition is proof against a reasonable hypothesis and definitely in favor of a miraculous origin. I doubt very many people who are not of a Restoration background would consider its origins beyond mundane. It would be one thing if the book were good, and were not obviously cribbed from sources like the Bible, but it was. So, where's the miracle? What is there that warrants this programmed aporia you adopt whenever the virus of sensible thought gets anywhere near your cherished testimony?

Hi Kishkumen, earlier you had given some possible sources that you say Joseph used as he wrote the Book of Mormon.

Would you mind looking at and answering some of the concerns that I had in my first paragraph above? I was hoping you might have something to say other than simply talking about my 'subjective' approach to the Book of Mormon. I think the two things that I haven't been able to get a "handle" on are important.

In regards to the translation/dictation chronology this might help:

Do a google search:

Approximate Book of Mormon Translation Timeline

Click on the link with the same name.

How did the various sources you are referring to...looking at the technical side of things and according to the witness accounts that we have...come to find themselves in the Book of Mormon?

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.

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

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.

As a scientist, I find it quite objectionable the way the term 'fact' and its ideation are thrown around by you, mentalgymnast. You have used phrases like 'Much of the other researched material that I've read over the years seems to agree/suggest...' , 'although we do know there was some kind of interactive collaboration/syncing...' , and now: ' we throw in the FACT....'.

Mentalgymnast, in order to say 'WE KNOW,' and in order to use the term fact, you have to state something that everyone agrees upon and knows, and you have to be stating an actual fact, not an opinion, not even a finding. A fact.

Please use a dictionary and look up the term.

Hi Kishkumen, earlier you had given some possible sources that you say Joseph used as he wrote the Book of Mormon.

Would you mind looking at and answering some of the concerns that I had in my first paragraph above? I was hoping you might have something to say other than simply talking about my 'subjective' approach to the Book of Mormon. I think the two things that I haven't been able to get a "handle" on are important.

In regards to the translation/dictation chronology this might help:

Do a google search:

Approximate Book of Mormon Translation Timeline

Click on the link with the same name.

How did the various sources you are referring to...looking at the technical side of things and according to the witness accounts that we have...come to find themselves in the Book of Mormon?

It will be interesting to see how Kishkumen responds to your little assignment. In my brief experience on this board, I have found that he is at heart a kind person, so if he humors you, be grateful. It's more than you deserve. Professor Jenkins has given a pretty definitive answer to your technique of asking others to disprove your assertions rather than you doing the positive work of making your own argument:

Let me begin with a basic principle of using evidence. I have no obligation to disprove the Book of Mormon, or indeed any religious text, because logically, nobody can prove a negative. I do not need to pick through the book and highlight every anachronism or error, sparking trench warfare with apologists who have built up elaborate defenses against every charge and cavil. Rather, it is up to anyone who believes in that Book to justify its authenticity, by producing positive arguments in its favor. If you are basing statements on the evidence of mystical gold plates that are not available for scholarly examination because they were taken up to Heaven, then you are making utterly extraordinary claims that demand extraordinary evidence. I am open to the concept of miracle, but the burden of proof clearly rests with the person making the claims.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousben ... d-history/

Mentalgymnast, you asked to have your intellectual dishonesty pointed out to you. Asking others to look at your sources and requiring them to disprove your points is disingenuous at best. Provide your own arguments, make your own case, try to support your own assertions. Your extraordinary claims require YOU to provide extraordinary evidence--its not the obligation of others to disprove your extraordinary claims.

[_honorentheos]

Sometimes I think critics of the Book of Mormon paint themselves into a box when they get on board with the hat in rock technique being anything more than a prop that was brought out for audiences when needed.

I'm strongly in favor of the majority of the Book of Mormon being written in the open with full knowledge and partisipation of Oliver Cowdery, and the Whitmers to a lesser extent. I know there are questions about this as well. But it's reasonable, it has much explanatory power for everything from content to the role of David and Oliver as witnesses, and loses nothing in being unable to explain any critical issue. So people reported seeing the rock-hat thing when they came by and the primary inhabitants of the Whitmer house back it up. All we have from Joseph is it was done by the gift and power of God, and that in the face of Oliver pressing him to testify about the process. That's quite an interesting issue in it's own right, in my opinion. Regardless. Lamanite DNA is really more than enough to make the question one of curiosity rather than necessity.

[_honorentheos]

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.

Regards,
MG

Hi MG,

I feel like you and I have beaten the Grant Hardy/Book of Mormon issue to death more times than an 80's horror film villian so I hesitate to bring it up yet again. But I really think the idea there are distinct voices among the authors of the Book of Mormon vs. evidence from the Jockers study is a serious stretch of evidence. In Hardy's case, we've discuss how his attempts to find narrative richness works best if one first assumes there are real life Nephites who wrote the book and then go looking for ways to nudge out the diversity in their personalities. As I've said before, most of his evidence is just as easily explained by looking at the chronology of the Book of Mormon's being put to paper in the late 1820's. If you follow the chronology of writing from Mosiah to Moroni and then back to Nephi to Omni and the Words of Mormon it really makes the entire book seem like Hardy is basically calling out cloud animals, in my opinion. Stylometry evidence is something other. It's definately orders of magnitude less meaningful than the physical evidence, lack thereof, evolution of theology and interpretation, etc., etc., that plagues the Book of Mormon and those who would defend it's honor as both scripture and history.

[_Kishkumen]

Yeah, mg, that's exactly what I expected from you--the assumption that the dictation timeline represents evidence that there must have been some miracle involved in the translation of the Book of Mormon. It's the old false dilemma DCP loves to throw around: if you can't explain the exact mechanism by which Joseph Smith composed the Book of Mormon, then he had to have received the text through the stone by revelation from God. Of course, you allow for the KJV not being on the plates but thrown in somehow by Smith's own agency or some such. The clear explanation is that Joseph Smith wrote the thing. I don't have to explain the details. I just know from all the evidence I have seen that his explanation that it came from gold plates left by Native American Hebrews is nonsense. No matter how many pericycles you add to the orbits of the Book of Mormon's genesis, the evidence of 19th century composition is embarrassingly abundant. Questions like, "How do you explain that amazing dictation timeline?" are pointless red herrings. I don't have to account for Joseph's prodigious memory, gift for oral composition, or intimate knowledge of the Bible. The evidence for all of that is both in the text and backed up by the contemporary witnesses to Joseph Smith's life.

[_canpakes]

MG - I have more questions regarding that last post. Bear in mind that my approach is to phrase these a bit simply, and in doing so, they may appear as somewhat brash, but they aren't meant in that way.

This is accurate, then? No other issues than the KJV language?

None other that those that have been discussed in a number of other places/writings. Way back when, for me, it started here...as far as I can remember anyway...

OK. So you and I have taken different approaches to the Book of Mormon based, principally (I'd assume) on the timeline of our exposure.

Your exposure starts at birth, and later in life you run into 'issues' that may cause concern... but you are operating within the Book always having been presented as factual/historical.

My exposure comes later in life and well past the formative years of youth, so my approach is to validate the Book on a number of logical or sensible fronts that have been established outside and independent of the LDS narrative.

At the risk of stating the obvious, I'd say that you are looking to eliminate 'issues' in order to maintain the Book's historicity. This is completely expected as the Book is the operating reality that you grew up within. What I'm not so sure about with folks who take this approach is why the issue of the Book's historicity must be inexorably wed to whatever spiritual content it might arguably provide the reader. In other words, cannot the Book be seen as a source of spirituality for the reader while dismissed as non-historical? And considering the structure and function of the CoJCoLDS, why must the Church in the present form be seen as a 'must have' in order to exercise the 'second witness' of Christ, considering that the Book doesn't present the same requirement within the context of the story that it tells?

http://www.amazon.com/New-Approaches-Book-Mormon-Explorations/dp/1560850175
Up thread I said:

If the Book of Mormon falls somewhere within the parameters of Ostler's Expansion Theory, Joseph's 'Midrash' and the narrative on the plates written by the Nephite prophets, I wouldn't expect that something in the Book of Mormon such as the Global Flood or the Tower of Babel would have its origin on the plates. If we have other interjections, such as New Testament scripture and Isaiah with all of their italic glory found in the text, that tells us something... So, I don't see any reason to expect that the Book of Mormon is a character for character translation of the plates. The mind of Joseph is in there. The contributions of other folks 'on the other side' may be in there.

This prompts two questions:

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?

2. We have numerous explanations, including from Joseph Smith, of a letter-by-letter 'tight translation'. On what grounds, authority or tenable sensibility can J. Smith's own account be tossed aside in order to promote a 'loose translation' theory by someone else?

...is...the text in the Book of Mormon exactly parallel[ing] the characters on the plates or [is] there...room for 'expansion' and/or midrash mixed within the text? Again, the plates were not being used directly during the translation so all bets are off as to exactly what was going on although we do know there was some kind of interactive collaboration/syncing between Joseph's mind and whatever other 'input' there was...and the resultant words seen using the seerstone in the hat. Considering some of the various explanations and/or examples of the various ways revelation/inspiration 'works' it wouldn't seem out of question to consider the translation process to be some kind of mix between the physical and the spiritual...with Joseph's mind in that mix. A fluid process rather than...cut and dried 'words were handed to him' process.

I think this approach makes it possible to be somewhat more 'forgiving' and/or flexible with what we run across in the Book of Mormon text.

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

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. 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.

How do you reconcile this?


Regarding your comment to Kishkumen:

The problem that I keep coming back to that I haven't been able to get a handle on is HOW did Joseph...assuming that you are correct...compile the writings/views of all these folks into a tidy little place in his brain and then regurgitate it while his head is in a hat and the translation/dictation period is evidenced to have occurred over a relatively short period of time.

I remember a thread a few years back where you and I discussed this and the math that showed that even with the shorter timelines suggested, it still works out to about 6 or 7 pages a day. This is not a substantial amount, especially given that some portions of the Book are so rich with the phrase, "and it came to pass" as to comprise 10% of the content over dozens of pages.

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.


ETA: found this interesting link after posting that discusses the expansion theory:

https://rsc.BYU.edu/archived/book-mormo ... ook-mormon