I write this post in response to “Letter to a CES Director: Why I lost My Testimony” by Jeremy T. Runnell, submitted April 2013. This post just deals with the Book of Mormon challenges, although I may write responses to other portions of the letter.
Errors in the Book of Mormon
Runnell asks why the Book of Mormon has errors from the Bible (specifically the edition of the King James version that Joseph Smith would have had).
This website indicates that Joseph Smith wasn't necessarily shown the precise words to write in English. One of his scribes, Oliver Cowdery, tried translating like Joseph did, probably assuming that the words would pop out at him, nice and easy. But it turned out to be more complicated than that (D&C 9). So while it's clear from the history that Joseph could claim divine guidance, it's also clear God made Joseph struggle and work for the translation, at least to a degree.
I myself am a professional translator, so I know what it's like to be presented with an idea in a foreign language. Usually I know of equivalent English expressions right off the bat. Other times I have to do some research in order to find a satisfactory equivalent. And once in a blue moon, there is absolutely no equivalent in English. Then I have to make a decision: do I give a literal but awkward sounding translation? Do I copy the word from the original language and make a translator's note explaining the meaning of the word or phrase?
Back to the point: why are those errors from the Bible in the Book of Mormon? Perhaps Joseph was given an idea and had to turn to the Bible in order to figure out the best way to put those ideas into words. I'm not going so far as to say that he definitely did, but I'm not dismissing the idea either.
To be fair, most of the passages in the Book of Mormon that almost totally coincide with Bible passages are attributed as such. For example, Nephi quoted extensively from Isaiah, and straight up says within the text that he is copying the words of Isaiah.
Another point: above I said almost totally coincide. Many of those passages have significant differences from what's in the Bible. For example, use this list to find the aforementioned Book of Mormon passages and compare them to Isaiah.
So one cannot make the claim that Joseph flat out copied and pasted from the Bible he had on hand.
Another concern the letter expresses is that if the Book of Mormon is "the most correct book," then why are the passages in the Book of Mormon passes that are similar to the Bible significantly different from the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible?
The Joseph Smith translation of the Bible was a continual work in progress. He worked on it off and on for many years. He wasn't completely done even when he died. There's no claim that it didn't need any further revision; and therefore it was imperfect.
Another thing: Are you defining "most correct" as "flawless"? If so, the problem with that is even the Book of Mormon text itself acknowledges that it is imperfect:
Mormon 8:12 "And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these. Behold, I am Moroni; and were it possible, I would make all things known unto you."
Mormon 9:31-32 Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been. And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.
And on the title page of the Book of Mormon, written by Moroni: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."
So what does "most correct" mean? It would imply that any other book is less correct in some degree. Or that if there is other literature out there that is also supremely correct, it would be on equal footing but not more correct than the Book of Mormon (there's no reason to say they can't share such a distinction).
So if Joseph Smith were to be asked if the Book of Mormon were more correct than his translation of the Bible, I think he would have said that either the Book of Mormon is still more correct, or they are equally correct.
Apparent Trinitarian views in the Book of Mormon
The apparent discrepancies of Trinitarian doctrine in the Book of Mormon can be addressed by the Book of Mormon itself, Mosiah 15. Abinadi, before being killed, explains how Christ is both the father and the son. It explains how Christ can simultaneously have the title of "Father" and "Son," yet be a different person from Heavenly Father. Furthermore, the Book of Mormon never once asserts that Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father share the same body (which is central to the doctrine of the Trinity according to the Nicene and Athanesian creed).
DNA and linguistic evidence
It seems like science is constantly coming out with new evidence for the ultimate origin of Native Americans. There is no scientific consesus on where they all originally came from. Further, DNA studies seem to be an inexact science, especially when dealing with ancient history. Further, cultural intermingling (which would have inevitably happened among the descendants of Lehi) can easily muddy the genetic waters.
But let's assume that scientists have irrefutably proven that no modern Native Americans have a single drop of Middle Eastern blood. That would not trouble me. Why?
Consider this:
The peoples who are recorded in the Book of Mormon must have been a fraction (a small one at that) of all the peoples living in the Americas. Anthropologists and historians can attest to the disappearance entire tribes of people.
Even the peoples who were counted as descendants of Lehi could not all possibly have been his literal descendants. Are all Americans (even those of European descent) literal descendants of the Mayflower pilgrims or of George Washington? Yet all Americans can be counted as figurative descendants of those people because we have inherited their cultural legacy.
And if the Book of Mormon itself has “mistakes of men,” then certainly supplementary information added to it certainly may have “mistakes of men,” too. That's why there is the change in the intro from “the principal ancestors” to “among the ancestors” of the American Indians.
The lack of linguistic influence among modern Native American languages from Hebrew is easily accounted for: linguists know of languages that disappear completely. And since the peoples of the Book of Mormon were probably in a geographically limited area (more on that later), it's reasonable to assume the language of the descendants of Lehi would have only influenced a fraction of the dozens of the indigenous languages spoken in the Americas. Of the indigenous languages that haven't disappeared, the European legacy of discouraging natives from speaking those languages and their tendency to neglect a thorough linguistic study of all those languages means we still don't know everything about surviving indigenous languages.
Hebrew influence may yet be found, or it may have disappeared with the dozens of indigenous languages that have disappeared.
Archeological evidence
Archeological evidence
I am not disturbed that no archeological evidence has been found that indisputably proves the existence of the descendants of Lehi. It's not like every square inch of the earth's crust has been excavated, and groundbreaking discoveries concerning ancient peoples are made all the time.
Also, consider that in ancient times:
-Communications technology was primitive.
-Transportation technology was primitive
This means that any record made in those times could not have been supplemented by information from means that we take for granted in modern times: travel, telephone, newspaper, television, internet, etc.
Thus, most of the events of the Book of Mormon likely took place within a radius of a few hundred miles, and maybe not even that far. Just think of all the stories that can be told in the past 100 years in just the town you live in.
Many records of the past were destroyed by the invading Europeans. Who knows what kinds of questions (related and unrelated to the Book of Mormon) we could have answered had those records and artifacts been preserved?
And let's be honest, even if archeologists found definitive proof of the existence of the descendants of Lehi, that still wouldn't be enough to convince the naysayers. How many people know they can find Jerusalem on a map yet don't believe in Jesus?
Concerning the Hill Cumorah
Have archeological excavations been done at the hill in New York? If so, please tell me. I'd be intrigued to hear who did it and what they found.
"This is in direct contradiction to what Joseph Smith and other prophets have taught.” What did Joseph Smith teach? What did the other prophets teach? Which prophets? I'd like to see sources cited for this so I can provide an adequate response.
In the account in the Pearl of Great Price that Joseph Smith gives about the origins of the Book of Mormon, he never calls the hill in New York where the plates are deposited “Cumorah.” It would appear that name was given later by someone other than Joseph Smith.
Also, in the text of the Book of Mormon, Mormon 6, there is a battle that is to take place in the “land Cumorah” (verse 5). Mormon urges his son Moroni to hide the Book of Mormon, such as it was, in the “hill Cumorah” (verse 6). This indicates that the hill where the record was hidden was not necessarily in the exact same location as the battle field. I mean, would you want to hide a one-of-a-kind collection, one that you know your enemies want to destroy, right where your enemies might stumble upon it?
We know that after Mormon's death at the battle of Cumorah, his son Moroni compiled the Book of Ether and the book of Moroni and added them to the Book of Mormon. This means that eventually Moroni went back to the hiding place that Mormon had picked out. Did he leave the record in the hill Cumorah for good? It's not clear from the text. The beginning of the Book of Moroni indicates that Moroni was on the run, so it's not unreasonable to surmise that, for his personal safety and the safety of the record, the last hiding place for the Book of Mormon may not have been the same as the hiding place described in Mormon 6:6.
I don't understand why the author has this concern: ”Nevermind that the Church has a visitor's center there in New York and holds annual Hill Cumorah pageants.”
Regardless of the location of the battle of Cumorah, the hill in Palmyra that we now call Cumorah is unquestionably historically significant to Mormons. Why not make it a tourist attraction (for lack of a better term)? And in any case, the church can build a visitor's center and perform a play anywhere it wants. The location doesn't necessarily mean anything.
Anachronisms
It has been noted that the Book of Mormon mentions materials and animals which modern historians assert did not exist in pre-Columbian times. Let's ignore the fact that our understanding of the past is always evolving (history can be even murkier than science), and assume that those historical assertions are 100% correct.
I mentioned before that it's likely that Joseph Smith was not handed a word-for-word translation. What's more likely is that he was given an idea and had to work hard to find an equivalent in English. So it's not unreasonable to think that Joseph gave one word when another word would have captured the idea better. Or, as I noted whenever I do translation, perhaps there was absolutely no English equivalent for certain concepts, and a rough approximation was the best he could come up with.
Geography
The Book of Mormon is hazy on exact dimensions, distances, and sizes of landmarks. Remember, cartography was primitive, and distances were measured in phrases like “day's journey.”
Thus, I find it highly unlikely that an artist would create a sketch that happens to look like the Great Lakes area. There are no measurements that happen to lead one to coincidentally create an approximate map that parallels the Great Lakes area.
Who created the map that this author uses? What was the artist's method? How did that person come up with the sizes of the bodies of water and the distances of landmarks in relation to each other?
Similarity of Book of Mormon to other literature; similarity of place names
If one does not believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon with divine assistance, then some other argument has to be put forth in order to account for the existence of the Book of Mormon. One would have to believe that Joseph Smith was a copycat and/or a clever writer of fiction.
I don't know of any historical evidence that shows that Joseph Smith ever wrote novels, short stories, or even poetry. You know, the kind of literature that the author confirms are works of fiction meant for entertainment. Even if you believe all of his revelations were made up, none of them is as sophisticated as the Book of Mormon. So the case that he had the imagination to invent all or part of the Book of Mormon is pretty weak.
Now on to the argument that he was a copycat.
What evidence is there that Joseph Smith had access to The First Book of Napoleon? Or to View of the Hebrews? What evidence is there that Joseph Smith had access to atlases to copy place names? And what about the longer list of place names and proper names in the Book of Mormon that don't coincidentally sound like names used outside of the Book of Mormon?
This is acknowledging the fact that The First Book of Napoleon has a similar writing style, even though the ultimate premise of the two books are different (testifying of Jesus Christ versus the history of Napoleon), and they discuss entirely different groups of people. This is also acknowledging the possibility that Oliver Cowdery (who supposedly read The View of the Hebrews) might have been scribe at the time Joseph translated Helaman 13-16.
I should mention the part of The View of the Hebrews where this author compares to Samuel the Lamanite in Helaman 13-16 has only one similarity: a prophet scaling a wall to prophesy. In the former, the prophet is struck dead after prophesying destruction. In the latter, the prophet's life is spared after prophesying of destruction, AND preaching repentance, and foretlling the signs of Jesus Christ's birth. Among other differences...
Remember, the work of translation took place within a few months. Was it possible that Joseph Smith did extensive research, creative collaboration, learned perfectly how to emulate multiple authors' styles, then used his imagination to fill in the rest? I have been writing as a hobby for years, and I know that if I were to undertake such a venture described above, it would take me years to do so, and I certainly would not be able to flesh out a well-formed story on the first go. That's ignoring the fact that I have the advantage of a bachelor's degree and years worth of writing instruction.
You could say that Joseph Smith, on the other hand, was “not smarter than a 5th grader.” Seriously, though, historians know Joseph Smith learned just the basics of his ABCs and 123s. Very uneducated (but not stupid).
Based on the historical evidence, I think it's actually more of a stretch to argue that Joseph Smith made it up and/or copied from other sources. The principle of Occam's razor, which favors the simplest explanation, would point toward the validity of Joseph's claim. Granted, Occam's razor is not a hard-and-fast rule because sometimes the more complicated answer is correct. But I think in this case critics are more hard-pressed to come up with a definitive, believable, plausable, water-tight, and most importantly, simple, alternative to explain the existence of the Book of Mormon.
The exact method of translation
The Church publishes a lot of paintings that are historically inaccurate. So? The paintings arent's scripture. The Arnold Friberg painting of body-builder Moroni talking to despondent old Mormon is inaccurate, too. Even though it's a cool painting: the sky is red, Moroni is sporting Roman-esque weapons.
Painters of LDS stories are capturing the essence of the story, what their personal image of the story is, but aren't pretending to create a life-like photograph.
If you read the Pearl of Great Price account of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith talks about the seer stones being used in translation. So I always knew that the pictures of him translating with just the plates and no seer stones weren't totally accurate (or perhaps complete would be a better word). And where are the plates in those paintings of Joseph looking into a hat (which makes those pictures incomplete, too)?
In any case, if Joseph Smith truly translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, does the precise methods and instruments he use in translation change that fact?
The Church isn't lying about how Joseph Smith translated. If anything, the Church simply doesn't have some of the information (Joseph was still a kid in his early twenties when he translated the book of Mormon; what college-age adult makes a habit of keeping precise records?).
Conclusion
I can see the wisdom of praying to know the Book of Mormon is true (a directive given in the Book of Mormon itself; Moroni 10:3-5). It can be overwhelming and confusing to read and analyze the entire history, then weigh everything the critics have to say against everything the apologists have to say—and the literature in both camps grows every year. From an intellectual perspective, It can be difficult to prove or disprove the Book of Mormon.
Appealing to God for the truth is actually a fairly rational thing to do. If there is a personage out there who knows EVERYTHING, woulnd't it be smart to take that being's word for it? Instead of trying to figure out on your own whether the critics or apologists are right? And the critics or apologists may be right about some things, wrong about others, and they may be totally objective, or they may be biased by an agenda.
Wouldn't it be simpler if an omniscient being personally told you if it were true or false? Wouldn't that trump any intellectual argument for or against it?
It has been my experience that people who believe deep down that the Book of Mormon is false will never be convinced that it is true even if they are presented with an overwhelming amount of well-researched and well-reasoned defenses. It has also been my experience that people who believe deep down that the Book of Mormon is true will never be convinced that it is false even if they are presented with an overwhelming amount of well-researched and well-reasoned criticisms.
So at the end of the day, you really do have to ask yourself—and God—is this book for real? Therein lies the answer.
If you believe deep down that it's false, then it's easy to see how it falls apart under scrutiny. If you believe deep down that it's true, it's easy to see how it stands up to scrutiny.
The only way a person really can be swayed is if they allow themselves to doubt what they already believe deep down.
“Letter to a CES Director” is long and I may or may not get around to providing my own responses to the rest of it. I'm positive that apologists, like the people at fairmormon.org, have or will come up with responses that are equally well-researched and well-reasoned. This is neither the beginning nor the end of the intellectual debate.
For my part, I have allowed myself to doubt that the Book of Mormon is true. Every time I do so, without fail, its truthfulness speaks to me for itself. My belief is made that much stronger because I genuinely believe instead of forcing myself to believe.
No comments:
Post a Comment