Commentary: Discussion on Mormonism

I don't see how starting at the wrong end of the scroll would prevent the dictionary from being useful.

And if he didn't know which direction to read it, how did he get the BoA correct? Unless you're claiming that the BoA was a direct revelation from God, independent of the scrolls. Which would lead me to wonder why scrolls were needed in the first place. I'm just still confused as to what exactly is being claimed here.
 
Tanstaafl - If he's manually trying to match the first few English words to the last hieroglyphic, and then moves to the next few English words to the next to the last hieroglyphic, he'll fail to get proper matches between the already translated English and the original hieroglyphics.

There are various accounts of how he translated the Book of Mormon, as a related example. Joseph Smith knew no ancient languages at the time he translated the Book of Mormon.

Little is known about the translation process itself. Few details can be gleaned from comments made by Joseph´s scribes and close associates. Only Joseph Smith knew the actual process, and he declined to describe it in public. At a Church conference in 1831, Hyrum Smith invited the Prophet to explain more fully how the Book of Mormon came forth. Joseph Smith responded that "it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon; and…it was not expedient for him to relate these things" - link

Well, that sucks. What other information is there about the translation process?

In 1856, Emma recalled that Joseph dictated the translation to her word for word, spelled out the proper names, and would correct her scribal errors even though he could not see what she had written. At one point while translating, Joseph was surprised to learn that Jerusalem had walls around it.

Emma was once asked in a later interview if Joseph had read from any books or notes while dictating. She answered, "He had neither," and when pressed, added: "If he had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me."

The dictation flowed smoothly. From the surviving portions of the Original Manuscript it appears that Joseph dictated about a dozen words at a time. Oliver would read those words back for verification, and then they would go on. Emma later added that after a meal or a night´s rest, Joseph would begin, without prompting, where he had previously left off (The Saints' Herald 26 [Oct. 1, 1879]:290). No time was taken for research, internal cross-checking, or editorial rewriting. In 1834 Oliver wrote: "These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth as he translated"

When Oliver Cowdery attempted to translate in April 1829, he was told by the Lord: "You must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right" (D&C 9:8). According to David Whitmer, Joseph could only translate when he was humble and faithful. One morning something had gone wrong about the house; Joseph could not translate a single syllable until he went into an orchard, prayed, and then he and Emma made amends (CHC 1:131). Joseph's ability to translate apparently increased as the work progressed.

Most reports state that throughout the project Joseph used the "Nephite interpreters" or, for convenience, he would use a seer stone (see CHC 1:128–30). Both instruments were sometimes called by others the Urim and Thummim. In 1830, Oliver Cowdery is reported to have testified in court that these tools enabled Joseph "to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters, which were engraved on the plates"

In an 1891 interview, William Smith indicated that when his brother Joseph used the "interpreters" (which were like a silver bow twisted into the shape of a figure eight with two stones between the rims of the bow connected by a rod to a breastplate), his hands were left free to hold the plates. Other late reports mention a variety of further details, but they cannot be historically confirmed or denied.

At the same time, circumstantial evidence in the English text suggests that the translation was quite precise. For example, the independent and identical translations of 1 Nephi 1:8 and of Alma 36:22 (precisely quoting twenty-one of Lehi´s words in 1 Nephi 1:8) typify the internal accuracy manifested in this long and complex record. Moreover, several formulaic terms, Hebraisms, stylistic indications of multiple authorship, varieties of parallelism and extended chiasmus (see Book of Mormon Authorship; Book of Mormon Literature), as well as certain Semitic proper names and some textual variants, not at all evident from the King James Bible, corroborate the claim that the translation was faithful to a consistent underlying text. - Ibid.

So apparently, he needed physical proximity to the items as he had the plates by him and the scrolls by him when he translated, but whether he needed direct view of the actual portions he was translating at the time seems unknown.

He's either a fraud, or God wanted to make sure that people were still left with their agency and complete freedom to choose what to believe based on their desires rather than an objective proof. This would make sense if part of the whole reason for being here is to individually (and not collectively) find and choose God or not. Based on evidence I've recently brought up about the Book of Mormon at least, objectively, it seems that it might actually be what it claims to be and that Joseph Smith is not a fraud. And if so, then the Book of Abraham could also be what it claims to be and it could be translated without knowing hieroglyphics or the specific direction of writing.
 
Last edited:
Chiasmus and the Book of Mormon​
By Sandra Tanner​

Some LDS writers are trying to establish the historicity of the Book of Mormon by maintaining that it contains a poetic style, sometimes used in the Bible, called chiasmus. They also point out that this style was not identified as ‘chiasmus’ until after the time of Joseph Smith. Thus, they reason, his use of it in the Book of Mormon demonstrates that it is a translation of an ancient text. However, a brief investigation shows just the opposite.
First, this poetic style has always been in the Bible. Whether anyone had a name for it or not is beside the point; the style was present for Joseph Smith to imitate.
Second, the Doctrine and Covenants has examples of the same pattern. Since Joseph Smith dictated the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, and it is not claimed that they were translations of ancient writings, obviously this pattern was part of Smith’s style. The Pearl of Great Price and Joseph's diary exhibit similar patterns.
A thesis at BYU by Richard C. Shipp, "Conceptual Patterns of Repetition in the Doctrine and Covenants and Their Implications" (Masters Thesis), arrives at a similar conclusion. Although Mr. Shipp was not trying to disprove chiasmus claims in the Book of Mormon, his study shows that Joseph Smith had picked up both the rhythm of chiasmus and parallelism. In his 1832 first vision account, Joseph claims that he had studied the Bible since he was twelve, so it is quite conceivable he picked up this style from his studies.
 
Elind - Thanks for giving another viewpoint. I guess that's possible, but given the amazing multi-chapter chiasmuses (or is that chiasmi or something else?) and the number and complexity of them that I've read, it doesn't seem reasonable. Well, and wordprinting suggests that Joseph Smith didn't write the text of the Book of Mormon anyway.

Occam's razor - "is often paraphrased as 'All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one,' or alternately, 'we should not assert that for which we do not have some proof.'"

Wordprinting of the Book of Mormon, mentioned above, suggests that Joseph Smith did not write (dictate) it. I am not asserting without proof/evidence. There is some evidence and so I think Occam doesn't say what you say he says. :)
 
articulett - In the posting frenzy above, I wanted to make sure you didn't miss my comment #643 and I wanted to get your feedback on it.

Thanks, I had missed it. I understand. And it's not frustrating nor is about to make my head explode... it's just that it's so subjective... and so it's worthless as a truth for me... just an interesting phenomenon. I am perhaps overly aware of how readily people can be fooled... I've learned a lot from Randi and from neurology and from being fooled myself... and the people here. Of course you must understand that to us, you are the same as any other person who comes here sure that they have the true woo... You haven't given a skeptic any reason to think you have an actual useful truth-- but you are certainly more cordial than most.

I won't make fun of you... randfan is one of my favorite posters--and he says he was once like you. If you can imagine someone giving vivid detail of a visit by aliens and swearing it was true (as people do), you'd believe that they believed it... but you wouldn't believe it was true... even if you couldn't explain their experiences... there are just so many other things that would explain it before making a leap across galaxies-- e.g. sleep paralysis, for one... lucid dreaming for another... a hallucination... a prank by someone else... drugs put in their drink... a lie... a false memory.... etc. Even speaking in tongues... you think that's Satan... I know a bit about glossolalia and I don't believe in Satan.... I think satan has been used to explain a lot of mental illnesses that people didn't understand. But it might also explain some "prophets".

Have you heard of the ideomotor effect? Have you tried it? You can do it with any pendulum... it's freaky. You can think "go in a circle"-- and it will... and it won't feel like you are doing anything to make it do so... but you are... that's why you can't make it spin if not attached to you or another person who knows what you are thinking. (You can also think "swing back and forth"--and it will do that too--seemingly magically).

If you could know for certain whether Joseph Smith was or wasn't a prophet, would you want to know? How about God? If your faith is important to you, I don't think this would be the best place to hang out. We are as skeptical of you as you are of the truthers, and though you are very friendly and earnest... you can't give us the kind of evidence that would be convincing and your method is so manipulative... if something subjective or amazingly coincidental happens--your mind, looking for a sign, will think it IS a sign. If you get no sign, you'll feel guilty and like you need to try harder. But the same is true for people who want to speak in tongues... and then suddenly they can... and it feels real... and it's a sign of something-- but what it's a sign of is a kind of self hypnosis... not devils, gods, or holy spirits. Those are just common explanations for fascinating experiences we don't yet understand.

But we do understand confirmation bias very well-- and cognitive dissonance... I guess most people think that is something for other people, but that "they would know" (inner knowingness) if they were fooling themselves or wrong. That's why we do things like double blind tests and statistical significance and testing the null hypothesis. You haven't tested the null hypothesis. You haven't tested to see if you could be fooling yourself-- in fact you've shielded yourself from every finding such a thing out-- just like the truthers have. At least that's what I see.
 
Last edited:
Elind - Thanks for giving another viewpoint. I guess that's possible, but given the amazing multi-chapter chiasmuses (or is that chiasmi or something else?) and the number and complexity of them that I've read, it doesn't seem reasonable. Well, and wordprinting suggests that Joseph Smith didn't write the text of the Book of Mormon anyway.

Occam's razor - "is often paraphrased as 'All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one,' or alternately, 'we should not assert that for which we do not have some proof.'"

Wordprinting of the Book of Mormon, mentioned above, suggests that Joseph Smith did not write (dictate) it. I am not asserting without proof/evidence. There is some evidence and so I think Occam doesn't say what you say he says. :)

I think you have a little misunderstanding of occam... your solution proposes very many huge unproven assumptions... sure it's simple to say "god did it"--but that's not what is meant by the simplest solution. And the leap you make from Joseph Smith not being the sole author to the notion that it's divine is an amazing leap, when the more parsimonious and likely explanation is that he plagiarized more than one source... and there is a lot of evidence for this point of view that you seem to be purposefully ignoring. But I've heard all sorts of wild extrapolations about why certain religions must be true. Another Mormon girl said that, "no 14 year old boy could write like that"-- I don't know why you can't see the wide leaps you are making when you know the truthers are doing the exact same thing... So far, everything thought to have a supernatural origin, has turned out to have a completely natural origin-- even though it seemed wildly implausible to our ancestors-- there is no evidence that anything "divine" or "evil" exists... and so much evidence that humans are story tellers-- they make up stories to explain and attempt to control their environment--to pass on knowledge-- their brains are interpretors of sensory input-- not "recorders".

But I know this won't change your mind. I just want you to understand what a skeptic knows and what a skeptic thinks and the kind of evidence a skeptic would require to accept the claims you believe to be truth.
 
Last edited:
Elind - Thanks for giving another viewpoint. I guess that's possible, but given the amazing multi-chapter chiasmuses (or is that chiasmi or something else?) and the number and complexity of them that I've read, it doesn't seem reasonable. Well, and wordprinting suggests that Joseph Smith didn't write the text of the Book of Mormon anyway.

We've already mentioned this. He copied, made up and rewrote what he had read. Some is original, much is obvious plagiarism down to the punctuation (of course you may say God is repeating himself).

Occam's razor - "is often paraphrased as 'All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one,' or alternately, 'we should not assert that for which we do not have some proof.'"

You do not seem to appreciate the significance of the latter alternate.



Wordprinting of the Book of Mormon, mentioned above, suggests that Joseph Smith did not write (dictate) it. I am not asserting without proof/evidence. There is some evidence and so I think Occam doesn't say what you say he says. :)

You misunderstand what it is that I hear Occam say, as above.

I also have to say that while this is interesting, you keep returning to a "given" in your mind and then arguing how that must be true. For example the tablets existed and we can prove it by showing that Smith was too illiterate and uneducated and so on to have made any of it up (aside from the obviously copied parts). Not very flattering regarding him, but so be it.

Clearly most of us think the whole tablets stuff is an obvious fraud to begin with for all kinds of reasons, but one simple one is that he was a documented fraudster of the "dowser" type making a living suckering people into thinking he could find treasure on their land. That was apparently a common dream in those days (before state lotteries were developed), but ever so so convenient for when he eventually figured out that he needed to find his own treasure to go further, and the population as a whole was beautifully primed to believe him.

I predict that you will spend the rest of your life looking for proofs that satisfy your preconceptions.
 
articulett - Thanks. I was actually interested in your feedback about why people hold so firmly to their beliefs in the face of opposing evidence. You have repeatedly asked about why people do that and I was wondering what you think about my theory.

Elind - Please provide your evidence that he copied anything other than a few chapters of Isiah (which are clearly identified in the text as being from Isiah and is included for a specific reason) and a chapter or so of Christ's teachings from the New Testament that He delivered to the people on the American continent (which was also identified as being the same thing He taught to those in the New Testament).

pixel42 - "Nothing the LDS teaches seems reasonable" - really? The LDS church teaches that people should be generous and charitable to each other. That's reasonable. It teaches that we should be healthy and take care of our bodies. that's reasonable. It teaches that we should allow others to believe as they wish. That's reasonable. If you really meant that the history of how the LDS church came to exist sounds unreasonable - I agree with you. It's an abnormal story. I have done a lot of research about it. Have you? Is the unreasonableness really just the straw man that has been set up for you or is it the truth? How do you know? From what I've seen here of people's research about Mormonism, I think you're looking at a straw man.

all - What's up? You have made baseless assertions (like "Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon," for example), I then provide some objective evidence against that and everyone jumps on the bandwagon claiming that I'm trying to prove that it's a work of God with that evidence. Huh? You people are smart - I know that - so what's up with the disconnect here? Why can't you see that I'm proving that your assertion is incorrect - not that it came from God.

Another pattern I'm seeing here is that you seem to only dig deep enough to find what matches your preconceived notions about Mormonism. The podcast, for example - everyone here thinks it's great and honest and accepts it at face value - that's not very skeptical behavior, is it? It doesn't cite any sources. It implies that the content is from the missionaries when it isn't. I decide to dig a little deeper and I find errors in it and document it here with actual names of people involved, dates, and a more complete picture of what happened, etc. Silence.

Why didn't someone else here do this research? Is it because you found what supported what you already believed and so there's no reason to dig any deeper and actually find sources? By your behavior, it seems that you don't really want to find out about Mormonism - you just want to find anything you can that will support your own preexisting point of view. You don't really want me to come up with any evidence for Mormonism or against your assertions. I guess that's OK, because at least I'm learning something here. It seems to me that you are holding just as tightly onto your own preexisting beliefs about Mormonism and your lack of belief in God and are willing to twist what I bring to you into whatever it takes to protect your preexisting views of Mormonism and lack of belief in God. Am I wrong here? I'm just not seeing any of your rigorous skepticism when it comes to the pod casts, for example. Why is that? I want some honesty here. Why the lack of skepticism when it comes to the pod casts? Honestly?
 
I also have to say that while this is interesting, you keep returning to a "given" in your mind and then arguing how that must be true. For example the tablets existed and we can prove it by showing that Smith was too illiterate and uneducated and so on to have made any of it up (aside from the obviously copied parts). Not very flattering regarding him, but so be it.


By the way, rcronk, this is precisely the same argument used to validate the Qu'ran as the word of God. Muhammad was illiterate, therefore could not have written it himself. Are you ready to accept their claim too?
 
Why didn't someone else here do this research? Is it because you found what supported what you already believed and so there's no reason to dig any deeper and actually find sources?
That's an interesting and fair question. Of course one could easily make the same response to you. You don't appear to ask difficult questions of the Mormon apologetics you like to cite.

I have made honest inquiries and looked deeply into many issues. Yes, there are mistakes and erroneous information in most things. This is the stuff of the Conspiracy Theorists. Find a mistake and then you can dismiss all of the evidence that has any link to that mistake. That's not very skeptical either.

I'm sorry, taken as a whole much of the evidence is quite damning.

The Book of Mormon is clearly plagerized from the Hebrew View and other sources.
 
Tanstaafl - I was making a point that an uneducated farm boy "guessed" that this false work of his would have been written in reformed Egyptian and that ended up a correct guess and later it was found, through objective evidence to be true. That's a completely different argument than the Quran. It wasn't proof that it was from God, it was more proof that Joseph didn't write it or make it up and that it's very unlikely that anybody else at that time could have either. This, again, is to disprove the baseless assertion put forth here by many that Joseph Smith wrote it.
 
Tanstaafl - I was making a point that an uneducated farm boy "guessed" that this false work of his would have been written in reformed Egyptian and that ended up a correct guess and later it was found, through objective evidence to be true.
I'm sorry if I missed this but please to explain?
 
RandFan - Good point - I'm not saying I'm perfect or unbiased - I'm just saying that nobody else here seems unbiased either. Can we all admit to that? I'm continuously being beaten down here and nobody is admitting to their own bias. Please post your evidence that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from the "Hebrew View" and what are these "other sources"?
 
Tanstaafl - If he's manually trying to match the first few English words to the last hieroglyphic, and then moves to the next few English words to the next to the last hieroglyphic, he'll fail to get proper matches between the already translated English and the original hieroglyphics.


Your answer implies that the video was incorrect in their representation of the translation process (and I'm only talking about Egyptian-to-Book of Abraham here). It could be that they were inaccurate, or possibly nobody knows the claimed process, as implied by the latter part of your response.

But the video as I recall said that Smith worked on building up a dictionary first, so he could later use that to translate the Egyptian. According to them, he did not have the English version at that point, and did not use the English translation to create the dictionary, but rather the process was the reverse. This was the impression they gave by quoting Smith's diary.

I guess I'll have to go back and watch the video again, as my recollection isn't clear enough at this point.
 
I think you have a little misunderstanding of occam... your solution proposes very many huge unproven assumptions... sure it's simple to say "god did it"--but that's not what is meant by the simplest solution.


This is a very important point rcrond, and both Elind and articulett have made it, but I'll weigh in too because I think it deserves the emphasis.

While "God did it" is simple to say, as a proposed solution, in practice it is the most complex solution imaginable, as it proposes an immense, unproven being with unlimited magical powers. Occam argues for the solution which is logically the simplest, not the one which is simplest to state.
 
RandFan - Good point - I'm not saying I'm perfect or unbiased - I'm just saying that nobody else here seems unbiased either. Can we all admit to that? I'm continuously being beaten down here and nobody is admitting to their own bias. Please post your evidence that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from the "Hebrew View" and what are these "other sources"?

I concede my biases.

The Hebrew view and spalding manuscript were both known before Joseph wrote the BOM.

The Hebrew view and spalding mansucript together both contain many naritives comon to the BOM. These are not tivial coincidence.

I don't mean to argue by link but this link contains side by side comparisons. It does a better job than I could and it is a very specific reference. Simply scroll down to where it says "A Parallel".
 
Last edited:
Tanstaafl - Yes, it implies that the video is incorrect. Earlier I posted information about how the ink from the hieroglyphics overwrote the ink from the English, showing that the English was written first and the hieroglyphics were being matched up to the English. I appreciate your objective tone. You could also take a look at http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Kirtland_Egyptian_Papers for more information.
 
RandFan - The wordprinting study compared the Book of Mormon to Spaulding and found it to not be a match. I'll check the link. Thanks. ETA: Perhaps we're discussing this on the wrong thread if this is one of your items?

Tanstaafl - Please re-read my post #670 under the bold "all". I am not saying that this means God did it. I was refuting a baseless assertion that Joseph Smith wrote it, that's all.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom