honorentheos wrote:
For fun, here is my critical version of Callister's treatment of the authorship question:
1 - Tight Translation.
History and witnesses tell us Smith not only read off the words he saw through the interpreters but would spell out words with which he was unfamiliar. If the Book of Mormon is actually produced by the gift and power of God, then every single word would have to be God-approved. Evidences of Hebrew-like structures Smith couldn't possibly have known help support this.
So what about the plagiarized mistakes from the KJV of the Bible? The descriptions of the Godhead that conflate Jesus with God the Eternal Father? The archeological claims that aren't found anywhere? Or the discovered examples of known late 18th and early 19th c. works that were parroting the Bible that also show the same Hebrew-like structures?
This can't be true.
2 - Loose Translation
Apologists who have studied the Book of Mormon and it's claimed context have arrived at a theory that the Book of Mormon wasn't translated word-for-word, or letter-for-letter given to Smith by God. Rather, the text and the context are best understood when we realize that God was working through Joseph Smith to provide a translation for modern people that was true to the message but out of necessity was a loose translation of what was actually recorded. This explains issues with the text describing a vast array of what would otherwise be issues such as technology not evident in the new world, why Joseph Smith may have inserted entire chapters from the KJV of the Bible into the text, or why the sermon on the mount in 3 Nephi corresponds with the first telling in the New Testament rather than the telling more likely to be accurate to the words Jesus may have spoke recorded in Luke.
So what about the cureloms and cumons? Nephite monetary systems? What about chiasmus?
This can't be true.
3 - Those Darned Brits
Some have claimed the Book of Mormon is a work of multiple translations that span varying stages of the development of the English language including some that predate the KJV. This helps explain certain grammar forms and saying that seem almost "hick" in nature but are claimed to be sophisticated examples of the marvelous nature of God's work that critics cannot account for exactly.
But, well, why the entire narrative in the Book of Mormon about the importance of the Gold Plates if God was going to give Joseph a secondary translation and then let him further influence the text, grammar, and language? And once one expands the narrative this far, hasn't one completely destroyed the faithful argument that Joseph's involvement can't be explained by critics when believers are making up other tiers of authors to explain the text?
This can't be true. Though, it get's points for flipping the script on Calllister's 5 points.
Those are three off the top of my head, MG, and you probably finished reading them and were dismissing them as entirely misrepresenting the discussion. Authorship by Joseph Smith wasn't disproven by any of what I wrote, it just reduced the believing theories used to defend the content of the Book of Mormon into something easy to brush off, right?
So, what about authorship being primary if it's inaccessible to us?
I could assert that my preference is for video evidence of Smith being given the gold plates by the angel Moroni. Or, as a second choice the physical subjugation of the gold plates to scientific scrutiny.
Impossible? Probably in the second case and certainly in the former but it is a gold standard that would prove you were right about the origin of the Book of Mormon.
We're basically left looking to the content of the Book of Mormon itself to learn about who authored it, when, and possibly gain some insight into how though whether you are a believer or critic the question of how is honestly lost to us.
So, you may protest that unless we can provide an alternative to Smith's claim that can be validated we must accept his word.
I say no, and ____ no. Smith cheated on his wife repeatedly, lied to her about it and when it couldn't be hidden longer claimed God told him to do it. There's no way we ought to give Smith a pass and take his word for anything. Especially not when he claims God is involved. I'm sorry but Smith lost that privilege by his own actions. Don't care what the Givens have to say. He lied to Emma, he cheated on her, he used God as an excuse. Even the weak excuse for this the Givens offer up doesn't erase his lying or cheating, they just white-wash it with the "God commanded it" rational and then ask that we consider how much better our lives are because of Smith's role as prophet...ugh.
Callister's assertion is specifically created so he could then present the argument in a way that he could easily defeat it. You brought them to a message board predominantly occupied by those who are critical of the Book of Mormon being an ancient document and almost to a person the point made to you was that Callister wasn't presenting an argument that critics really make. You seem to feel this is because the critics can't answer this question about authorship definitively, yet ignore that you can't, either. Who authored the Book of Mormon is lost information to us as of right now.
I don't know if I can make it any more clear. Callister created strawmen that he knocked over for the entertainment of his audience. It failed to actually represent the arguments critics make when they debate the Book of Mormon, and they glossed over how inaccessible the authorship question is for LDS given the pat Sunday School answer can't satisfy the issues. Thus, we have Skousen, Ostler, Sorenson, Gardner, Hardy telling us that it isn't necessary to have a literal belief in the Book of Mormon's historicity...the theories on the believing side are legion trying to account for how Joseph Smith could have received the Book of Mormon as an ancient text from God.
So, how about we agree that Callister's point was a pep rally for believers and when we get together as participants in discussion we approach the issues from the perspective of what is actually accessible to us?
Ha! Sanctorian, you think that this is going to be the debate to end all debates. Fat chance.
These things have been 'on the plate' for decades now (number #3 for a lesser time), having being discussed by MUCH greater minds than mine.
Anyway, honor, thanks for this post. It wraps up quite nicely the elephant(s) that are still in the room once one has left the devotional where Elder Callister spoke. You're right, these three areas of exploration are and will continue to be concerns for both the apologists and the critics. Not so much the critics since the physical evidence seems to be more in their favor in some respects.
You've mentioned that you are an absurdist. I am more or less a reductionist. The whole is always greater than the sum of its parts if one of those parts is God. This viewpoint finds so many applications in life. But it is, granted, a faith based reductionist argument. So we are starting at a different place. In any of these discussions that will always be the case. I don't see any way around it.
Tight translation. Loose translation. Group conference call. These efforts at explaining the Book of Mormon come up short individually but added together...the sum...they work. If God is entered into the equation. That's why I've looked at Ostler's Expansionist Theory as being the avenue, that at least to me, seems to account for all three combined into one. It puts Joseph, God, and others (Moroni, Mormon, others) together in a collaborative virtual 'meeting' room...conference call, if you will...working together in order to produce a product. The plates and ancient prophets being the central catalyst/foundation that brings them all together so that there is 'solid ground' on which to build.
Any one of the three Book of Mormon translation theories that you've listed are going to be difficult, if not impossible, to act as 'stand alone' methods for explaining the translation process. If we have a collaboration/expansionist view of translation it gives each participant a responsibility and/or part to play during the process.
For me, the million dollar question is...if I'm going to subscribe to this method of production for the Book of Mormon, how do I explain the apparent anachronistic behavior of the text? If God is one of the participants, why/how could He let that slide? For that I don't have an answer that completely satisfies me...except to say that I believe that life and everything that is part and parcel of it is constructed/made with 'opposition'/ambiguity built into the system. Whether or not we see anachronistic behavior in the text as a 'test'...the mistakes of men, left in without correction...or purposeful 'easter eggs' that are placed in the narrative to cause/ask us to 'dig deeper' into the text/meaning? I don't know.
But they are there.
So each of the three modes of translation you've listed present their own strengths and weaknesses in explaining the Book of Mormon translation process as 'stand-a-lones'. But combined together there is reason to think, for me, that the Book of Mormon is a complex book/narrative with a bit more 'mystery' behind it than some of us would want/like to accept. It does come down to the "gift and power of God" as being the 'catch all' explanation if you're going to approach it with the eyes of faith. Secondarily it's a matter of trust. Do you accept Joseph Smith at his word? Some do...or at least give him the benefit of a doubt, all things considered...and some don't.
I will concede that Elder Callister didn't discuss the elephants in the room as much as he did the critical arguments that could more or less easily be glanced at, frowned at, and left somewhat off to the side without weighing too heavily on students as they walked out the door. The students, on the whole, walked away from the devotional and went about their day and their next scripture reading/study with full purpose of heart and confidence.
Regards,
MG