- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
On Own Now wrote:
Yet, as an atheist, I have no explanation other than Joseph Smith as the source. I accept JS as the source, without God, but it does cause some mental gymnastics.
I love – LOVE – that “On Own Now” admits to mental gymnastics is his atheist perspective. It is a reminder to me that I interpret all things through the lens of my internal world. As I interpret – I take in things that support and strengthen my internal world and discard, ignore, shelve, or explain away things that are inconsistent with my internal world.
My internal world is not reality, but it is necessary for me to try to understand, make meaning of, and function in reality. I did this when I was a TBM and I do this now – just from different angles. It is ok. It is part of being human. The expansion theory for me. Like Blake Ostler wrote:
Quote:Those who write about the Book of Mormon in its ancient American setting necessarily adopt the expansion theory implicitly. (e.g., John Sorenson et al.) To make sense of the animals, plants, metals, weapons, directions and so forth mentioned in the Book of Mormon, we must assume that the words in the English are approximations or “conceptual translations” to make sense of what we know actually existed.
Grant Hardy* wrote “Using the seer stone or the interpreters apparently involved more than simply reading off what he saw in vision, though some of his early associates assumed this was exactly what he did.” I believe Joseph had some freedom in interpreting what he saw in the stones, but his influence is minimal.I don’t see how the environment theory could be plausible. I really like what Hardy wrote about it:
Quote:It is possible to imagine Joseph Smith developing ideas about Nephite history and literature in his head over the course of several years, yet those who hold this theory have to account for the fact that this rich, intricate, internally consistent text was produced in a most unusual manner. The eyewitnesses to the translation process are virtually unanimous in reporting what they saw: Joseph would put a small seer stone into his hat and then, placing his face in the hat to block the light, would dictate the Book of Mormon aloud while various scribes wrote down his words…His wife, Emma, recalled that he never worked from notes or a script; and whenever he took a break, he would begin again exactly where he left off, without seeing the manuscript or having anyone read back to him the last few sentences he had translated……the book was dictated, with Joseph’s scribes hurriedly writing down what they heard, without paragraphing, punctuation, or even a knowledge of how a given sentence might end. As a result, sentences in the Book of Mormon often consist of short strings of phrases and clauses that are frequently repetitive and do not always come together into clear grammatical units. (Manuscript evidence suggest that Joseph dictated in blocks of twenty words or so; he himself may not have known where a complicated sentence was going.)
*Grant Hardy is a guy who took the 1920 edition of the Book of Mormon (which is now in the public domain, I guess) and made a “Reader’s Edition” that organizes the text into logical paragraphs, adds quotations marks, etc. I have only read a sample and it’s cool. It’s onAmazon hereBy thy way, Rock Waterman’s blog post Best Evidence For The Book of Mormon
Quote:On my one and only visit to the Smithsonian Museum, I was surprised to learn that there is a ton of stuff at the Smithsonian that no one has yet gotten around to examining and cataloging. The basement of the Smithsonian actually does resemble, to some degree, that fictional government warehouse seen at the end of
Raiders of the Lost Ark. There exist unopened crates that no one knows the contents of. This was the case with most of the evidence of those large North American cities. Volumes of maps, descriptions, sketches, artifacts, and even hundreds of scrolls containing pre-columbian writing were simply lying around unexamined.
I wanted to see if there really are so many uncataloged artifacts and found this example:
Quote:The National Park Service quietly shuttered a museum at Grand Teton National Park this week, removing a world-class collection of ancient Native American artifacts…The Indian Arts Museum had been housed inside the park’s Colter Bay Visitor Center since 1972, containing a priceless array of rare artifacts representing the cultural ancestry of more than 100 American Indian tribes from virtually every region of the country…A report issued last summer by the nonprofit National Parks Conservation Association noted that more than half of the Park Service’s 80 million museum artifacts were uncataloged.
I really hope that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon just like the Church claims. However, it can be hard for me to believe that sometimes. Shawn wrote:The expansion theory for me. Like Blake Ostler wrote:
Quote:Those who write about the Book of Mormon in its ancient American setting necessarily adopt the expansion theory implicitly. (e.g., John Sorenson et al.) To make sense of the animals, plants, metals, weapons, directions and so forth mentioned in the Book of Mormon, we must assume that the words in the English are approximations or “conceptual translations” to make sense of what we know actually existed.
Grant Hardy* wrote “Using the seer stone or the interpreters apparently involved more than simply reading off what he saw in vision, though some of his early associates assumed this was exactly what he did.” I believe Joseph had some freedom in interpreting what he saw in the stones, but his influence is minimal.I don’t see how the environment theory could be plausible. I really like what Hardy wrote about it:
Quote:It is possible to imagine Joseph Smith developing ideas about Nephite history and literature in his head over the course of several years, yet those who hold this theory have to account for the fact that this rich, intricate, internally consistent text was produced in a most unusual manner. The eyewitnesses to the translation process are virtually unanimous in reporting what they saw: Joseph would put a small seer stone into his hat and then, placing his face in the hat to block the light, would dictate the Book of Mormon aloud while various scribes wrote down his words…His wife, Emma, recalled that he never worked from notes or a script; and whenever he took a break, he would begin again exactly where he left off, without seeing the manuscript or having anyone read back to him the last few sentences he had translated……the book was dictated, with Joseph’s scribes hurriedly writing down what they heard, without paragraphing, punctuation, or even a knowledge of how a given sentence might end. As a result, sentences in the Book of Mormon often consist of short strings of phrases and clauses that are frequently repetitive and do not always come together into clear grammatical units. (Manuscript evidence suggest that Joseph dictated in blocks of twenty words or so; he himself may not have known where a complicated sentence was going.)
*Grant Hardy is a guy who took the 1920 edition of the Book of Mormon (which is now in the public domain, I guess) and made a “Reader’s Edition” that organizes the text into logical paragraphs, adds quotations marks, etc. I have only read a sample and it’s cool. It’s onAmazon hereThanks for the additional references – I love Grant Hardy. I’ve exchanged messages with him on Mormondialogue. He’s a truly fairminded and considerate individual who took a long time to respond directly to some of my concerns. He doesn’t post much there any more – but I’ve huge respect for him.
He also joined the managing editors board at the new Mormon Studies review from NAMI (was FARMS) after Peterson et al got moved along.
That’s cool, Mackay. I hadn’t heard of Hardy until I stumbled upon his book on Amazon and I didn’t know if anyone here knew who he is. Shawn wrote:That’s cool, Mackay. I hadn’t heard of Hardy until I stumbled upon his book on Amazon and I didn’t know if anyone here knew who he is.
I see him as a ‘next generation’ of Mormon scholar. He’s very smart, well-read… but balanced. He won’t defend everything ‘to the death’ and at the alienation of others.
Here’s an example of his contribution style over on mormondialoge.org:
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59631-did-mitchill-not-anthon-inspire-martin-harris-funding-what-implications-for-authorship/page__st__40#entry1209212590 In answer to a comment “I’ve read a lot of fairmormon and appreciate it. But it seems to me that the style is often to counter a criticism rather than answer the criticism” he says:
Quote:You are correct that this is a style. What I offer is my personal reaction, which is probably not shared by many.
I agree that this style is insufficient because it appears that the only response is some diversion from the question rather than a direct response to it. There is a style in LDS apologetics that rather immediately looks for the contradiction without understanding the nature of the argument. The reason, of course, is that all of these things get wrapped up in polemics, and everyone is talking to the larger (often only implied) argument about authenticity.
Thus a critic proposes Methodist language (because there is an implication that it shows that the text isn’t divine) and the apologist responds with something that indicates that the text could be historical (and therefore still be divine).
The Methodist language is still there. That is a translation issue and the nature of the translation is still being worked out.
Hardy’s most recent book about the Book of Mormon is really good. I can’t think of the title right now, but I will look it up when I get a chance – unless someone else can provide it first. Old-Timer wrote:Hardy’s most recent book about the Book of Mormon is really good. I can’t think of the title right now, but I will look it up when I get a chance – unless someone else can provide it first.
The Gift and Power?
Bill did a podcast with him recently.
No, I am thinking of a different one. It’s about reading the Book of Mormon for what it actually says. It’s called, “
Understanding the Book of Mormon“. There is a short post about it in our Book and Media Reviews section:
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2857&hilit=grant+hardy
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.