Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_tkv]

It really doesn't need to be this hard, MG. Part of the problem is that the LDS essay on translation contradicts itself. The essay's trying to accommodate two views of translation without stating that clearly -- that of the dictation witnesses, who thought it was pre-translated into English, and that of scholars such as BHR, Sperry, et al., who've determined it was Smith translating, and cracking open a Bible. The essay's schizophrenic. The dictation witnesses thought it was pre-translated w/KJV language included, then BHR shifted it to JSJr. So which is it? The church needs to decide. There's a problem with part of the witness statements, since some of them thought the scribes got it letter perfect, but it's clear from the original manuscript they didn't. But still, the dictation witnesses generally agree on the externals. You should really respect Skousen's position, since he is the foremost expert and not an apologist by disposition. His position is translation by the Lord, probably by delegation, but a loose translation, and tight control of the transmission of words to Smith. Also, you should know that Skousen definitely thinks that the argument that Smith was the author because he really knew the KJV isn't tenable from a close examination of the critical text. It's very different from KJV language in quite a few ways. Skousen would tell you this. I emailed him a couple of times 9 years ago and he got back to me within a day or two both times. I think you'd be better served interacting with Skousen, who really knows this stuff, or with Hardy, than with those here who really don't delve into the language of the text like Skousen and Hardy do.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I wonder why MG doesn't entertain the idea the Book of Mormon was a collaborative effort to produce a novel, and when its copyright didn't sell Joseph Smith simply monetized it through his religious endeavor? The story of the plates and the rock-in-the-hat are LDS historical apocrypha.

- Doc

[_mentalgymnast]

The essay's trying to accommodate two views of translation...church needs to decide.

Skousen's position...is translation by the Lord, probably by delegation, but a loose translation, and tight control of the transmission of words to Smith.

I think that Brant Gardner and Royal Skousen have basically agreed to disagree on tight vs. loose translation. To me, as a layperson who reads, this tells me that there is not a strictly black and white method by which the Book of Mormon was translated. There was some kind of a mix of the human, Bible, the plates, and spiritual beings. And if honor is correct and the critics have been focusing a bit too much on the 'hat' we have even more latitude to think that these three were intermixed to produce the final product.

Question, tkv, are you convinced one way or the other in regards to the period of time that was taken to dictate/translate the 'lion's share' of the Book of Mormon? Also, are you aware of any evidence that would show Joseph and Co. did not on the most part use the stone in the hat during the translation process? Or do you think that he had crib notes either in his head or literally on paper?

Regards,
MG

[_tkv]

MG: One thing at a time: one must first decide who to lend more credence to with regard to to xlation, Gardner or Skousen. Based on observable, objective evidence I believe that it must be the latter. First, Sk does primary research on the matter, G does secondary research. Second, Sk has a PhD in linguistics, G has an MA in anthropology. Third, Sk has been working on the text since 1988, essentially full time; G has not. Fourth, compare Sk's ATV with G's commentary: Sk's ATV is exhaustive textual comparison, internal and external; that's not what G's commentary is. Finally, Skousen just published 1,300 pages on the history of grammatical editing in the Book of Mormon. Now, tell me why you trust G's view on xlation as much as Sk's? I don't, for the above reasons.

[_mentalgymnast]

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.

I know that I have this to deal with.

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.

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?

Again, tight vs. loose...if both not to be exclusively used or thrown out means the there was something else going on. I've provided some ideas.

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.

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".

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.

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.

[the number of pages translated turns out to be] 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.

I would agree that on the days where Isaiah and/or other Bible referenced scripture are being 'dictated' that things would move along pretty fast. The "and it came to pass(es)" would go fast also. It's all the other cohesive/complex narrative that I'm more interested in. And that's where Hardy's book shines. And if Joseph had his head in a hat for a good portion of the time during dictation/translation, that's what I find remarkable. I think you would agree?

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

Regards,
MG

[_I have a question]

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.

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?

[_mentalgymnast]

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.

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.

And even if pressed...where would they go at this point on this subject/topic? We're not talking about Mountain Meadows and other issues/controversies they've been able to step (with baby steps or daddy steps) into with varying degrees of success.

For me, if the KJV cut and pastes were on the seerstone, that's sort of problematic. OTOH, if the translation process was more of a mix, as I've described, then it isn't.

Regards,
MG

[_Kishkumen]

MG: One thing at a time: one must first decide who to lend more credence to with regard to to xlation, Gardner or Skousen. Based on observable, objective evidence I believe that it must be the latter. First, Sk does primary research on the matter, G does secondary research. Second, Sk has a PhD in linguistics, G has an MA in anthropology. Third, Sk has been working on the text since 1988, essentially full time; G has not. Fourth, compare Sk's ATV with G's commentary: Sk's ATV is exhaustive textual comparison, internal and external; that's not what G's commentary is. Finally, Skousen just published 1,300 pages on the history of grammatical editing in the Book of Mormon. Now, tell me why you trust G's view on xlation as much as Sk's? I don't, for the above reasons.

I am with tkv on this one. You should definitely go with the guy who believes the Book of Mormon was written in Early Modern English, probably through the mediation of some heavenly being who lived on earth when Early Modern English was in use. I choose to go with the team of John Dee and Edward Kelley, although others seem to prefer other options for the heavenly translator/conduit. Dee and Kelley were far more experienced with angelic communication and ritual, so I see them as the superior choice here.

[_I have a question]

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.

And even if pressed...where would they go at this point on this subject/topic? We're not talking about Mountain Meadows and other issues/controversies they've been able to step (with baby steps or daddy steps) into with varying degrees of success.

For me, if the KJV cut and pastes were on the seerstone, that's sort of problematic. OTOH, if the translation process was more of a mix, as I've described, then it isn't.

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.

[_tkv]

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.