Maximalists vs. Minimalists

[Dan Vogel]

cdowis,

>As I said, I have no problem contextualizing the text to Mesoamerica as a tool for possible interpretation. What I object to is the attempt to use this interpretation as evidence for antiquity, which only begs the question.

Very much agree.

The BOM lends itself both to a modern and ancient interpretation, as evidenced in our discussions here. This is why I do not attempt to "prove" the BOM, but mostly find myself questioning those who claim a modern view of the text is the only correct interpretation.

If the BOM is modern, then it is the only legitimate grounds on which to base interpretation. Even then, there is no certainty that it is the "right" interpretation. At most, it might be strong enough to achieve scholarly consensus.

I brush aside the modern reading interpretation, based on the text which says that the actual audience for the BOM is a modern reader, unlike the OT. It was written for our day, addressing current issues.

The BOM is prophetic, true, but that can be a cause of difficulty also. What if the prophecy doesn't come to pass, especially as most first readers apparently believed? No destruction of government by Masonic secret combinations, and no Zionic city of refuge? Eventually meaning and interpretation shift to meet the needs of the community of believers.

Some of the issues, indeed, are difficult to discover in a 19th century context, such as terrorist groups with a standing army (hiding in caves in the mountains), Mafia style oaths, etc.

The BOM is attempting to warn Jacksonian America about the dangers of allowing secret combinations to thrive unchecked. It's saying what happened to both the Jaredites and Nephites could happen again to America. The analogy is intentionally incomplete, but in my estimation an extremely clever (inspired?) use of cultural symbols.

None of this indicates antiquity nor modernity. Merely tht the BOM does as it promises to do, address the issues of our modern era, which is a remarkable feat as an ancient text.

If it is an ancient text. It does a good job predicting pre-1830 events, but so far not so good with events after 1830.

[Merry]

What is quite interesting about the quote above is that it demonstrates the incontrovertible fact that the LGT was in wide currency in 1954, and therefore cannot be perceived as an ad hoc reaction to DNA arguments.

According to my research, the focus on Meso-America (which was the beginning of LGT) began as far back as 1843. It WAS an ad hoc reaction to Indian response to the book.

As I said, I have no problem contextualizing the text to Mesoamerica as a tool for possible interpretation. What I object to is the attempt to use this interpretation as evidence for antiquity, which only begs the question.

What we can agree on, here, is that the book contains pre-Columbian American history. What we disagree on is who was involved, and how long ago those events occurred.

One must interpret the book within the context of history recorded elsewhere, not as something that just appeared out of nothing. We can agree that that Joseph and friends added a lot to the original text, even if we disagree on whether that, itself, was written in 1825 AD or 1520 AD or 500 AD.

What history one knows before reading the book determines a lot whether one accepts it as inspired scripture or as a product of 1829 America. This, in itself, says a lot to me.