ClarkGoble wrote:But there are plenty of examples of Joseph worried he'd been deceived. (Typically early on) The emphasis rhetorically is of course to successful examples. But why would Joseph be worried if revelation was all black or white? Typically the ones we remember best are clear but often they are simply vague. An example of vague revelation is Joseph praying over the second coming and getting an answer that really wasn't an answer.
Why not go with Joseph's revelation about selling the copyright of the Book of Mormon in Canada. He didn't suggest he might have been deceived until after it failed.
Themis wrote:I'm suggesting a higher level of accuracy due to claimed divine assistance and commands. You seem to go the opposite for reasons of trying to keep some elements making Joseph still a prophet and the church true.
Higher level relative to what? You need to unpack what you think is more accurate. Theologically I think it's more accurate as is the motivational factor. I don't think the historical facts need be more accurate as they'd be writing in the genres they are familiar with. Effectively you are saying if they're inspired they'll suddenly follow 20th century narrative norms. I confess I don't see why that'd be true.
Themis wrote:I'm suggesting a higher level of accuracy due to claimed divine assistance and commands. You seem to go the opposite for reasons of trying to keep some elements making Joseph still a prophet and the church true.
Higher level relative to what? You need to unpack what you think is more accurate. Theologically I think it's more accurate as is the motivational factor. I don't think the historical facts need be more accurate as they'd be writing in the genres they are familiar with. Effectively you are saying if they're inspired they'll suddenly follow 20th century narrative norms. I confess I don't see why that'd be true.
One of the big points I have made is divine translation. The purpose of a non-divine translation is to as accurately as possible translate text in one language into another. I don't see how would also not be one of the main purposes of a divine translation, but I wouldn't limit it to just translation if we go by Joseph's examples. I suggest you would get a more accurate translation then if done by someone who knows both languages on their own.
Themis wrote:One of the big points I have made is divine translation. The purpose of a non-divine translation is to as accurately as possible translate text in one language into another. I don't see how would also not be one of the main purposes of a divine translation, but I wouldn't limit it to just translation if we go by Joseph's examples. I suggest you would get a more accurate translation then if done by someone who knows both languages on their own.
I think most allow for the idea of translation being more loose or functional rather than adhering to a strict word for word or even idea for idea translation. (Brant Gardner in my view has the best theory in this regard although I have a few issues with some of his theory) I think many if not most are also fine with midrasic expansion. I personally think the text 'quotes' similar texts in order to make the translation which likely distorts somewhat the underlying texts.
So in terms of a close textual fidelity translation the way a scholar would make it I think the Book of Mormon is at best a very loose translation. The analogy I make would be to say Ezra Pound's translations of Chinese poetry. They're very good poetry but very loose and somewhat distorted translations at best. (Not that Pound is using the method I think Joseph did - it's more just an analogy to explain how translations can be loose in terms of the texts themselves)
Themis wrote:One of the big points I have made is divine translation. The purpose of a non-divine translation is to as accurately as possible translate text in one language into another. I don't see how would also not be one of the main purposes of a divine translation, but I wouldn't limit it to just translation if we go by Joseph's examples. I suggest you would get a more accurate translation then if done by someone who knows both languages on their own.
I think most allow for the idea of translation being more loose or functional rather than adhering to a strict word for word or even idea for idea translation. (Brant Gardner in my view has the best theory in this regard although I have a few issues with some of his theory) I think many if not most are also fine with midrasic expansion. I personally think the text 'quotes' similar texts in order to make the translation which likely distorts somewhat the underlying texts.
So in terms of a close textual fidelity translation the way a scholar would make it I think the Book of Mormon is at best a very loose translation. The analogy I make would be to say Ezra Pound's translations of Chinese poetry. They're very good poetry but very loose and somewhat distorted translations at best. (Not that Pound is using the method I think Joseph did - it's more just an analogy to explain how translations can be loose in terms of the texts themselves)
I like the idea for idea better, but going off from that would be a decision of the divine doing the translation. I doubt it would want a less accurate translation then word for word or idea for idea of the events being translated. No need for it when it comes to physical events like original events happening to the Jaredites. A big point I have made multiple times is that no one goes there until there is a need to protect the overall belief in Joseph Smith's divine calling. That's the one thing that cannot be questioned, even though their private knowledge is not a reliable way to know this. It's the emotional component of the spiritual experience that provides the glue that keeps one attached to their interpretations of those experiences, and then we see the resulting apologia to protect those beliefs.
The whole translation issue is problematic to me, and is wrought with example after example of what we would expect to see if Joseph Smith was just making the whole story up. If God can preserve a written record of a completely unknown civilization for hundreds of years after they purportedly disappeared, then command a resurrected being to spend years training a young boy so he was able to retrieve and translate these same records, why not just send a paper copy of what God wanted published to begin with? I know the faithful answer is something about Joseph Smith being properly trained and all that but given the way future translations turned out, his training was a total failure.
Seriously, the story of how the Book of Mormon was produced is exactly what we would expect to see made up in a 19th century environment.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Themis wrote:A big point I have made multiple times is that no one goes there until there is a need to protect the overall belief in Joseph Smith's divine calling. That's the one thing that cannot be questioned, even though their private knowledge is not a reliable way to know this.
I think I'd agreed up to the point when you say private knowledge isn't a reliable way to know this. Although I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. But I have a post at T&S coming up on that subject so I'll not steal it's thunder.
Fence Sitter wrote:Seriously, the story of how the Book of Mormon was produced is exactly what we would expect to see made up in a 19th century environment.
Vogel has made probably the strongest arguments along this line of anyone. I'm obviously not persuaded since I'm still a believing Mormon. I think for the naturalistic critic in the sense of not postulating any phenomena not already reasonably sustained by science that Vogel's work is the best. I think he does a bit too much psychologizing of Joseph but given his thesis of explaining Joseph as a fraud, that makes some sense. I'll confess I like Dan and have enjoyed the discussions I've had with him.
All that said though the biggest places I find this thesis implausible is how someone in the abject poverty he was in had the resources to construct the fraud and why on earth he'd persist with the fraud given the extensive and extremely violent opposition. (Read up on what was going on during the period when he had the plates -- it's not pleasant and I don't understand why he'd stick with it) Especially after it became clear he wasn't going to make money with the book. What's the point of the fraud at that point. If we instead think Joseph is simply delusional rather than a conscious fraud then that seems to raise even more questions. Not the least of which those who are that mentally ill rarely keep to a single story and usually aren't that functional. The biggest problem with the delusional view is explaining the plates. It's even harder to make sense of that if he wasn't conscious about making them.
The other issues to my eyes is that as persuasive as Dan is for certain features of early American myths and legends about mound builders and so forth to explain both early Mormon views and more particularly elements of the Book of Mormon the text itself seems at odd with many elements. Now it's been too long since I last read Dan's books and I have them in storage right now so I can't grab them for argument. However when I read them and when I'd discussed them in the past there simply were a lot of elements in the text that seem odd if we're going for a combination of mound building, masonry, View of the Hebrews as the source for the text.
I recognize that's not going to convince anyone here since the alternative is the bigger leaps from non-evidence of the divine. However I think we should recognize there are big, big questions for both the fraudulent and delusional models. Especially given the only time Joseph really was moderately successful was Nauvoo. Explaining the 1830's and 1820's just seems very difficult to my eyes. To me (and I recognize many here won't agree) these problems are the equivalent of horses or metal swords for the critics.
Concerning the details of how Smith might have produced the Book by fraud, I have noticed a basic difference in attitude between Mormons and non-Mormons, which isn't simply that of belief/credulity versus skepticism. There is a clash of expectations about degree of detail.
To explain what I mean by that clash, I consider how physics treats different subjects. The motion of the planet Jupiter is a poster child of physics, and we can go on about it for days, in great detail. The motion of a tornado, on the other hand, is unpredictable, and we have little to say beyond that. We believe that we understand why tornados are unpredictable, because of basic instability in aerodynamics. For any crazy gyration of a whirlwind, there would be some chain of causes, but it's silly to expect a detailed story about why exactly a tornado traveled the path that it did, because so many different things could have been the causes, and there'll be no way of telling which ones actually were. Within our understanding of the world, the motion of a planet is the kind of thing that not only can be treated in detail, but should be; the motion of a tornado is something about which little can be said, or should be said.
Suppose I talk with a Tornado Alley weather witch, however. She'll just shrug about Jupiter, but she'll have a lot to say about all the ways of divining the paths of tornados. The track record of her divinations may be unimpressive to science, but her methods are complex. She and her customers see the motion of a planet as something about which little either can or should be said, but they are used to hearing long, detailed stories about tornadoes.
So what happens if we argue about meteorology and astronomy? We both get angry, that's what, because we each find the other to be obsessively concerned with imaginary trivia and appallingly ignorant and apathetic about the things that actually count.
Defenders and critics of Mormonism seem to me to talk past each other in a similar way about how the Book of Mormon was made. Critics see details of fraud as things that really don't need much discussing: things could have been done in any number of ways, and the traces have all long since vanished. Critics see suspicious patterns in the content of the Book and the behavior of the Prophet as being decisively important.
Mormons on the other hand are used to a fair amount of detail about just how the Book was produced. Not exhaustive detail, but extensive; it's a lengthy story. Whereas the content of the Book and the behavior of the Prophet are not expected to have any clear explanations—God does whatever God wants, after all.
Exactly which map might Smith have seen? Where might he have encountered this phrase or that? Where could he have come by enough lead to make a fake stack of plates? Critics shrug. All kinds of possibilities are conceivable, and glances at maps or phrases once overheard don't leave evidence trails. These are simply not the kinds of questions history can answer—or should be expected to answer.
Why does the Book of Mormon copy chunks of the King James Bible verbatim? Why did the angel take the golden plates back? Mormons just shrug. God reveals what God wills; the Lord giveth and taketh. These are not the kinds of questions that a religion can answer—or should be expected to answer.
Physics Guy wrote:Concerning the details of how Smith might have produced the Book by fraud, I have noticed a basic difference in attitude between Mormons and non-Mormons, which isn't simply that of belief/credulity versus skepticism. There is a clash of expectations about degree of detail.
I think there's a lot of truth in that. Clearly apologists have certain things they can't explain to their own satisfaction. (Horse, metal, a few other things) There are explanations but they aren't always satisfying. The same is true of the other side. Without getting into a dispute about 'false equivalence' (which rarely is productive) there really are some differences. Likewise what they count as big problems are based upon their expectations. A few of those we've discussed here the past few weeks such as how God should reveal truths, what degree of human involvement and fallibilism is involved, and so forth. Other assumptions I've mentioned like explaining motivation and so forth. To each side the other side just seems to missing key things but more importantly not caring about the expectations they care about.