quote: How many of you have seen old episodes of _I Love Lucy_? The relationship between a husband and wife in that show, between males and females in general, is deeply offensive, to me at least. Actually, it was deeply offensive to me even in the fifties. I never liked Lucy as a child because I thought she was an idiot, and I really never liked her husband because I thought he treated her like a jerk -- but I had a different standard of what a husband and wife should be than the rest of American culture, apparently, because I never saw the series criticized on those grounds at the time. ... 1820s America should leap out of every page, exactly the way 1950s America leaps out of every minute of every episode of _I Love Lucy_. ... _I Love Lucy_ episodes never stopped to explain, "By the way, the husband is the head of the home and has the authority to tell his wife what to do, just as if she were a child." They assume that the audience will know that. They assume that the audience doesn't need a defense of Ricky's spanking Lucy. "By the way, this isn't wife abuse." [emphasis added]
This is fascinating. A bit of a different perspective from the more recent article about the 50's, albeit in a different context. Different essay and addressing different points, of course.
[/tangent]
[ December 14, 2004, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having read Hobbes' link, it seems to me that Card is a bit too unwilling to give Smith credit for being able to have interests other than those that dominated his culture. For example, the argument that all the American literature of the time dealt with romantic love and women as important motivators, though not actors, while in BoM women are hardly mentioned. Well, consider contemporary culture. A touch sex-obsessed, yes? Card has been known to remark on it, in fact. Yet he himself writes books that have little or no sex in them, that do not even mention it as a lack. Ender, apparently, is a virgin until 36, but never once complains about his lack of a sex life. Clearly, this does not follow the American pattern, right? Card must be copying works from someone else's culture! Or... he's just a man with interests different from those dominating his own culture.
Later on, Card argues that parts of the book have a different voice; in particular, the Book of Alma concentrates on military matters, while nothing in Smith's life shows that he was interested in the military. Well, in the first place, how interested do you have to be to write well about something? But in the second place, if we accept multiple authorship, that does not preclude multiple hoaxing. If the book is a hoax, after all, the three-and-eight witnesses must have known it. Incidentally, are there by any chance twelve different authors to the book? And, as Card himself points out, other members of the early Church, "Samson Avard, for instance" were interested in military matters.
Card has a lot of other arguments, and at first sight, a lot of them do look good. I'm just not well-educated enough on the matter to argue convincingly. For example, several references are made to 'Joseph Smith's educational level'; what was it, exactly? Three Rs? Charity student at a cow college?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So my question is: if a particular historical claim is innaccurate - eg, it turns out that there was no Nephite civilization in the New World - is the LDS faith still valid?
That's a very good question. I've been asked if certain claims in the bible were untrue would it invalidate my faith.
On a minor detail, like how many horses were in Solomon's stable, of course not. On a major detail, like the resurrection of Christ, then yes.
I imagine that many mormons are the same way - if there is a detail that could be down to translation error or copying mistake, then it certainly wouldn't be enough to invalidate a faith. But major problems would be much harder to overcome.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just picked up a book of mine off my book shelf that is devoted to apologetics. I love having a room devoted to being a library.
Anyway, interesting tidbit here about historical reliablity and how to determine it.
Military historian C. Sanders lists and explains the basic principles of historiography: 1) the bibliographical test 2) the internal evidence test and 3) the external evidence test.
What I think most people are interested in is number 3 - what other historical material confirms or denies the internal testimony of the documents themselves?
I would love to see evidences of external evidences for the Book of Mormon, for my own education. And I think we can offer up such evidences and discuss them civilly, can we not? I mean, dialogue is the goal here, not antagonism.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: would love to see evidences of external evidences for the Book of Mormon, for my own education. And I think we can offer up such evidences and discuss them civilly, can we not? I mean, dialogue is the goal here, not antagonism.
Try this link for starters,Belle. http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#mulek The things referred to here are some of the main things, but there are others. You could check out Hugh Nibley, "Since Cumorah",and others by him for discussions on things as the Hebrew background of the Book of Mormon, as well as John Welch for discussion of Hebrew literary forms in the book of Mormon, too. Here's a link on Nibley. http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=13 I'm sure this will provoke comments by others who have participated in this discussion. As I said in my earlier post, the evidences are interesting, but ultimately irrelevant. The real evidence is in the book itself.
posted
Yeah, I can see how you might figure it's patronizing. Except that I didn't want to explain something to you that I felt was mostly self-evident, because I thought that would be more patronizing. So I figured I'd ask the question, since at the very least I'm saying, by asking, that I don't know whether you see the flaw there, as opposed to acting on the assumption that you do not.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I've never found a detailed and accurate rebuttal to be patronizing in the least, even if I saw it coming. If anything, it is a show of respect to actually put effort into refuting someone's claim.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay - after starting this thread, and having it go off in an entirely different direction that I had thought would happen, I was going to stay out, in respect for my Mormon friends.
But after reading the essay by OSC that Hobbes linked to -- I see that my question is still not really addressed that I can tell.
Back when I was an "investigator" (someone learning about the LDS church to see whether or not I wanted to join, which I didn't, in the end) everything basically hinged on whether or not the Book of Mormon was true -- whether or not I could believe that it was a much true as the Bible.
And here is the one thing that bugged me:
from OSC's essay:
quote: At the language and word-choice level, of course, the Book of Mormon, as a translated document, should be pure Joseph Smith. It should reflect what a man of his level of education in 1820s America thinks scripture should sound like. And of course we have exactly the ersatz King James version voice that the Prophet knew the translation would have to have if it were to be taken as scripture by the people he was going to offer it to. Fake or genuine, the Book of Mormon would need that. And, fake or genuine, the Prophet's attempt at old-fashioned formal English should reveal his lack of education -- which it does, with numerous grammatical errors and misuses of archaic forms, many of which survive even in current editions of the Book of Mormon.
But it's no surprise that the translator repeatedly errs, because this is not his natural speaking voice. No one speaks this kind of language around him. He doesn't understand the grammar, and so grammatical errors are thick on the ground. Those who believe, like David Whitmer, that the translation appeared word for word on the Urim and Thummum, are ripe for disillusionment -- or else they are accusing God of some really embarrassing grammatical errors.
For those of you who have not read the Book of Mormon, it is written much like the King James Version of the Bible, however, not quiet as well. Very old English, Thees and Thou's, etc., but not with quite the flow of the KJV of the Bible.
So here is what always puzzled me: If the golden plates were in a totally foreign language (as claimed) that had to be translated by the angel because no one knew this language, and Joseph Smith wrote down the translation as given by the angel, why was it written in old English? Why not translate it into however Joseph Smith actually talked in the 1820's? People weren't talking as stilted and archiac in the 1800's as this book is written. It was almost like they were trying very hard to mimic the popular King James Version of the bible, which was not the only language of the bible available at that time, of course.
I know OSC says above that it was because otherwise people wouldn't take it as scripture. I just can't believe that.
I just can't believe God would say "Hey, Joe -- the people aren't going to believe it unless you write it in Old English" and then go on to have the old English written so poorly. In all of the Bible, scripture was written in the language of the day and time it was put down.
So I just couldn't get past this in my head -- why it was taken from some ancient unknown language and put into King James Style. It made it very hard for me to swallow.
posted
I don't think it was it was the Lord saying "Translate it as I put the meaning into your head, only do it old English so people will take me seriously", I think Joseph Smith knew he was writting scripture, and to him (and to just about everyone else who speaks English) scripture means old English with the "thees" and "thou art"s. He had the meaning, and to him, meaning came out in the form of old English.
Then there's also the respect issue. Latter day saints are instructed to pray in a respectful tone, and if possible, use old English, since it shows more thought and is ... well ... more respected, if only because it is so associated with scripture. I don't think Joseph Smith would've been treating the word of God very reverently if he wrote it: "My name is Nephi, and my Dad raised me well, and you know, I'm a pretty smart guy so I'm not just making this stuff up."
quote: Then there's also the respect issue. Latter day saints are instructed to pray in a respectful tone, and if possible, use old English, since it shows more thought and is ... well ... more respected, if only because it is so associated with scripture.
Huh?
If you wanted something more associated with scripture, why not learn to pray in the original Hebrew or Greek or whatever?
posted
Seriously though, it's not necessarily because old English is associated with the scriptures that it's better to use it, at least not directly, but because the use of old English shows a greater degree of respect, which we should use when speaking to God.
[EDIT: And if you did speak Greek, I see no reason why you wouldn't want to use Greek in prayer, at least personal prayer...]
posted
How exactly does older english command more respect?
I wouldn't think it would be the language as much as the person and thought and truth behind it. You can use older english and still be superficial and it won't be respectful. Or you can pray with meaning from within in any language and it will be respectful.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dont' think it's that it's more respectful to God, but that it's a sign of respect among humans, and so is being given to God who deserves our respect.
The value humans place on it, not God, is what makes it a sign of respect to God.
I'm not sure how much it really is a sign of respect among humans, but I think that's the logic behind it.
posted
Well as I see it, a perfect person could use any language, any time, and it wouldn't make a difference to God, since being perfect, that person would say the right things with the right attitude and understanding. For the rest of us Old English is associates with respect and reverence, and will help us show that we use that language in relation to God, as well as help shape our thoughts in that tone.
Kind of like wearing your Sunday best, it helps keep up a feeling of reverence and show respect to God, not because the dress is someone morally better, or God thinks it looks better, but as Dag said, we asasociate it with respect, and it shows that we will treat the Lord with that respect, as well as help keep us in the proper state of mind.
posted
*shrug* to each his own I guess. the use of an older version of english always seemed stiff and formal to me, which I guess is a type of respect.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course there is. Nobody said there isn't. It was asked how it could be possible that one language is more respectful than another. Hobbes gave an example that hilighted it well.
posted
It would be foolish of me to do anything except give my wallet to somebody with a sword.
<-- doesn't wear a watch
Thanks for the encouragement, mack. I'm pretty nervous, but less so than I might be. I decided that I *am* going to test, whether I'm ready or not. It's just a matter of trying to prepare myself fully between now and then.
I'll let you know what happens, whether I pass or fail, which is a very real possibility.
posted
Back to the whole translation and grammatical errors thing.
Isn't it possible that all/a lot/quite a few/some of the grammatical errors/syntax/whatever in the English version of the Book of Mormon are also caused by the original authors?
Nephi. He didn't finish high school or go to university, and even if he had, that's no guarantee that his writing abilities are perfec. We have no idea how he would score on any test of spelling, grammar, punctuation, and all the rest of it. So is it impossible that he just wasn't perfect at expressing himself? Same as the rest of them. The Book of Mormon was written over a span of what, 1200 years, correct? Any language shifts in that time period. That can also account for some differences in language.
I've never thought of this before in terms of Joseph Smith and his language abilities. I'd always assumed that the problems - speaking of language - were caused by the original authors.
And now I tell you that I haven't read OSC's article yet. It's late, and I'm going to bed. But the question. Is he saying that all those language problems are caused by Joseph Smith and not the original authors?
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I seem to remember the missionaries being a little evasive on why they don't read the NIV or other translations of the Bible. It made them nervous that I had a Greek New Testament, and could read it myself.
Is it okay to read the Bible in the original languages (if you can) when you're an LDS member? I remember thinking it was funny that the LDS published their own Bibles, even though they said it was for cross-referencing (the same reason I had to buy a particular version of the Bible in college- so all our page numbers would match up).
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
IIRC, Joseph Smith said that the KJV is the most accurately translated English Bible, which is why we always use the KJV. He also said that one of the German translation is even better.
But if you can eliminate one tralsation step, it's even better.
quote: I'd always assumed that the problems - speaking of language - were caused by the original authors.
Well, I took it from Hobbes' post above
quote:He had the meaning, and to him, meaning came out in the form of old English.
That Joseph Smith was given "the meaning" of the stories, etc. and he then put it into language the best he knew how -- not that the angel told him word-for-word what to write. I mean, would an angel, translating the words of Nephi to Joseph Smith -- would the angel have left in all the errors and (sics)?
It's totally okay. There are Mormons who have graduated from theological schools. Most institute directors I have known have studied at least one of the languages useful for biblical studies -- i.e. Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Aramaic.
The version of the Bible published by the LDS Church is the KJV text with added footnotes (not that many of these actually -- most of them refer to a word that wasn't translated so well in KJV) and cross references to the other works in the LDS canon -- the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine & Covenants.
The discomfort of the missionaries you met with can probably be attributed to the discomfort the average lay member has in discussing texts (or versions of texts) they aren't familiar with.
The Church has said that the KJV is the version that we should primarily use. That's not to say that it is even the *most* correct version. Joseph Smith actually said in one sermon that the Luther translation of the Bible was the best in his opinion.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
At the time, it probably was the most accurate translation.
I'm not sure why we stick to that one, but if you get LDS scriptures, it's the KJV translation. The sections of the Book of Mormon where the writers quote the Hebrew prophets were translated into the same language as the KJV, and the translations done by Joseph Smith are also from the KJV.
This is really Taalcon's question - he has a whole rant/explanation about this in him. I wonder if he's ever posted it anywhere.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I don't know that I completely buy his theories on how the book was translated, but I think it's safe to say he is the leading authority on the text of the Book of Mormon. He has some intersting things to say about errors and about the language used.
----- In regards to Farmgirl's complaint that it doesn't have the flow of the KJV of the Bible....
It depends. Some passages are incredibly awkward. Others are quite amazing and beautiful.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, here is one of my many problems with the claims of Joseph Smith. Just to let you know where I'm coming from, like Farmgirl I think, I did not have any hostility against the Mormon faith. I had friends that were Mormon who I greatly respected and liked. During my "seeking" phase, I guess, when I drifted away from the Christian upbringing I had I did in fact look into Mormonism. Mainly because of a co-worker I had, I admired him because he was just a great guy, I could tell he loved and respected his wife and was devoted to his family, and he was pretty much an ideal husband type, and that was something I really wanted. (and found later )
It bothered me when I learned that the Mormons believe that the church was basically apostate, until Joseph Smith had his visions. The way I took it, he pronounced everybody wrong, and said that only he had the "true church."
Well, that pretty much flies in the face of everything I knew. For one thing, the church (which I believe was established at Pentecost) had continued since that time until today. This matches up with what Jesus said, when he proclaimed that "the Gates of Hell would not prevail against it." Yet, some, what roughly 1800 years later? We have God saying that "oh no, actually I was wrong - the church didn't last, so now I'm starting over with this guy Joseph Smith." That was a pretty tough pill to swallow.
Also, I don't like that the Bible is considered unreliable. My understanding is that the Mormons believe it's been corrupted?
(Belle turns to her book on the reliability of the New Testament)
Okay, we have more manuscripts attesting to the textual authority of the New Testament than any other ancient work. Here is a quote by Sir Frederic Kenyon, from his book Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament
quote:In no other case is the interval of time between composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscripts so short as that of the New Testament. The books of the New Testament were written in the latter part of the first century; the earliest extant manuscripts (trifling scraps excepted) are of the fourth century - say from 250 to 300 years later.
This may sound a considerable interval, but it is nothing to that which parts most of the great classical authors from their earliest manuscripts. We believe that we have in all essentials an accurate text of the seven extant plays of Sophocles; yet the earliest substantial manuscript upon which it is based was written more than 1400 years after the poet's death.
Not only are the New Testament copies closer to the source material in time, but we have many more of them than any other ancient work.
Take Homer's Iliad Written in 900 B.C., the earliest copy is 400 B.C., a timespan of 500 years, and the number of manuscript copies we have for it are 643. In contrast, the New Testament was written in A.D. 40-100, and we have more than 24,000 manuscripts dating from A.D 125 (some of the trifling scraps mentioned by Kenyon.)
Also the accuracy of the New Testament scriptures is supported by translations in other langugages, from the earliest versions. Christianity is a missionary faith, and the scriptures were translated into various languages, so the accuracy across versions can be compared. There are more than 15,000 existing copies of early manuscripts in different languages - translated into Syriac, Latin, or Coptic. Metzger, Bruce M, The Text of the New Testament Oxford University Press
It's hard for me to swallow that the New Testament is so unreliable, that God would need to completely re-write scripture and that he would go back on his word that the church would prevail throughout time.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that makes sense that you don't believe it, because if you did, you'd be Mormon. Or, no organized religion at all, if you believed that the gospel as set up by Jesus Christ had been lost, but yet did not believe that it was restored by Joseph Smith.
Added: The Book of Mormon isn't a rewrite of the Bible, though.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
