History And Historicity In The Book Of Mormon---Gardner

[stemelbow]

I Find this to be an excellent article and a great contribution to this discussion. Lately I've been swaying heavily towards the BoM doesn't do historicity at all idea, it's nice to see a well-reasoned case to be made that there is more to it than meets the eye.

[Robert F. Smith]

Do we have any information as to what was on the texts that were destroyed?

 

If not, I do not see what conclusions can be drawn from such information beyond the fact that they were destroyed.

Actually we know a great deal about what was contained in such books:

 

Three (or four) Maya codices survive, one dealing with the zodiac and prophecies, and a couple of them contain complex astronomical tables.

There are also a number of Mixtec and Aztec codices which contain astrological and ritual texts, along with some narrative history.

 

There are also authentic written texts based on pre-Columbian sources, such as the Mayan Chilam Balam and Popol Vuh, containing mythological narratives of creation and conflict, along with genealogies.

 

Mike Coe has noted that some decorated funerary pottery contains scenes which match Maya mythological texts, such as the Popol Vuh (see Robiscek & Hales, Maya Book of the Dead, 1981), and we can compare all this with the many dated Maya and Olmec stone monuments and wall paintings to determine that the hundreds of precious codices which were destroyed by Franciscan priests contained narrative history, genealogy, astronomy, astrology, ritual and mythological texts.

[morgan.deane]

Posting this even before I get a chance  to read it (dinner bell just rang and I missed it conference time) .  That is how much I like you guys:

 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2015-fairmormon-conference/history-and-historicity-in-the-book-of-mormon

Thanks for posting this!! This was the presentation for which I was most excited.  I particularly liked his comments on the role that invasions had in both causing the Nephites to flee from the land of Nephi and their final destruction. I think we could be even more specific and try to find the destruction of Ammonihah in the historical and archaeology record. Since that happens during the period for which we've got the most material, it provides a great deal of possible convergences.  I always enjoy his comments on methodology as well. 

 

I've been arguing for two books now, (and another journal article in consideration) that military history is vastly important to understanding the text and placing it in history.  Yet military history remains neglected by many Mesoamericanists (with a few exceptions that prove the rule), in Mormon studies, and by historians in general. For example, I read Friedel and Schele's A Forest of Kings, and they discussed a rather implausible tactical scenario without critical examination. If they had some basic training in military studies they could have distinguished between romanticized elements in the records and what is practical and realistic on the battlefield.  But as far as I know nobody has commented on it. Even things like Gardner and Sorenson's research leaves a great deal left unsaid. But I suppose they could say the same thing about my use of Mesoamerican history. So it all works out haha. 

 

Anyways, thanks again for posting this!! 

[Bobbieaware]

So you discount entirely Alma 32?

Well of course I believe a testimony can grow, starting at a point where one is only beginning to know and comprehend the things of God. But if one does want to eventually know for a certainty that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, he"s not going to gain that sure knowledge from the encouraging empirical evidences of which I spoke, for the only way to get that sure witness is by revelation from the Holy Ghost. There appear to be folks on this board who want conclusive empirical evidence that will establish once and for all the Book of Mormon is true before they will believe. That ain't gonna happen because Moroni's challenge stipulates one must exercise genuine faith in Christ before any confirmatory revelation is given. And a commandment to exercise of faith in Christ presupposes conclusive empirical evidence does not exist, otherwise there would be no need to exercise faith in Christ so as to have the Holy Ghost confirm to the human spirit (not the mind of flesh) that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. In accord with Alma 32, such sure knowledge will usually only occur when the "tree" is grown and bearing fruit, though there are exceptions to the usual rule. If some lapsed or wavering member, who won't even exercise a particle of faith, is expecting confirmation without revelation, it ain't gonna happen.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[theplains]

Surely you know that this doesn't describe anything I have written?

 

Your article said near the end:

 

"There is currently a remarkable set of correspondences that are quite precise for

time, place, and event—showing that the Book of Mormon accurately reflects the

greater world in which it was written. There may not be that one conclusive evidence

for Book of Mormon historicity, but there is a solid web of interlocking evidence

that points to a text authentic to a specific place at specific times."

 

Is this 'specific place' only the Yucatan Peninsula?  The Book of Mormon makes

several references to the land which is the choice land above all lands.  Is this

also only the Yucatan Peninsula?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Brant Gardner]

 

Your article said near the end:

 

"There is currently a remarkable set of correspondences that are quite precise for

time, place, and event—showing that the Book of Mormon accurately reflects the

greater world in which it was written. There may not be that one conclusive evidence

for Book of Mormon historicity, but there is a solid web of interlocking evidence

that points to a text authentic to a specific place at specific times."

 

Is this 'specific place' only the Yucatan Peninsula?  The Book of Mormon makes

several references to the land which is the choice land above all lands.  Is this

also only the Yucatan Peninsula?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

Jim, I don't believe the Yucatan peninsula had anything to do with the Book of Mormon. It would have begun in highland Guatemala (area near modern Guatemala City) and the over the Cuchumantanes mountains into the Grijalva River valley.

 

The problem with using the idea of a "choice land above all lands" is that we seem to read that from our perspective. if the Lord made a promise to Lehi, should Lehi not have benefitted from it? If we declare that the United States is the only possible "choice land above all lands" we are imposing our assumptions on the text--and telling poor Lehi that he could have a great land to live it--if he lived over 2000 years.

 

During Lehi's time, what would have made a lang "choice above all other lands?" Perhaps fertile land. Perhaps abundance of resources. Perhaps climate. Perhaps the opportunities for enjoying a high civilization. During Lehi's lifetime, it would be difficult to suggest any of those reasons Heartland regions of the US would be "choice." I have been in both Missouri and highland Guatemala in the summer. Trust me, you'll prefer Guatemala.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Posting this even before I get a chance  to read it (dinner bell just rang and I missed it conference time) .  That is how much I like you guys:

 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2015-fairmormon-conference/history-and-historicity-in-the-book-of-mormon

 

That helps my weak testimony, thanks.

 

Good observations Brant 

Edited August 22, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

 

 

Brant, 

 

You said ancient Book of Mormon names got translated to words that Joseph Smith was familiar with, but what about Cureloms and Cumom?

Did I describe your view correctly? 

 

Why is your view better than the Sorenson view? 

Edited August 22, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Bob Crockett]

The problem with using the idea of a "choice land above all lands" is that we seem to read that from our perspective. if the Lord made a promise to Lehi, should Lehi not have benefitted from it? If we declare that the United States is the only possible "choice land above all lands" we are imposing our assumptions on the text--and telling poor Lehi that he could have a great land to live it--if he lived over 2000 years.

 

During Lehi's time, what would have made a lang "choice above all other lands?" Perhaps fertile land. Perhaps abundance of resources. Perhaps climate. Perhaps the opportunities for enjoying a high civilization. During Lehi's lifetime, it would be difficult to suggest any of those reasons Heartland regions of the US would be "choice." I have been in both Missouri and highland Guatemala in the summer. Trust me, you'll prefer Guatemala.

 

Your statements are contrary to the Brethren.  They either say that the totality of the Americas is the land choice above all others or they say that the United States is in the land choice above all others. 

 

“To the peoples who should inhabit this blessed land of the Americas, the Western Hemisphere, an ancient prophet uttered this significant promise and solemn warning:  Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, . . . For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. (Book of Mormon, Ether 2:10 and 12.)”  (E.T. Benson, CR, Oct. 1944, 128.)

 

“The world is wrong and we have to right it under the direction of Heaven. For this purpose are we located upon the land of Zion, and the land of Zion is North and South America—the land where our heavenly Father made his appearance and planted the Garden of Eden. This land is choice above all other lands upon the face of the earth.” (B. Young, JoD 10:222.)

 

Moreover, although it has been a few years, I once read all the temple dedicatory prayers for temples in the Americas.  From Canada to Brazil, the lands were described as the lands of father Lehi.  I need to go back and look for verbiage discussed in this post.

 

I have dozens more examples.  

Edited August 22, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Brant Gardner]

Brant, 

 

You said ancient Book of Mormon names got translated to words that Joseph Smith was familiar with, but what about Cureloms and Cumom?

Did I describe your view correctly? 

 

Why is your view better than the Sorenson view? 

Let me start with the second question. Either are possible. However, if I assume that all anachronisms are ancient, I have a harder time with your first question.

 

As for the first, notice that the untranslated terms are in the book of Ether. My hypothesis is that the Nephites knew what the animals were, Joseph translated what seemed to be a possible animal. When Mosiah translated Ether (I think Moroni just used Mosiah's translation), there were some animals that they did not recognize and so Mosiah kept their Jaredite names. As the Nephites didn't know them and they entered the text as transliterations rather than translations, Joseph couldn't get the sense of what they were either--so the transliteration was retained.

[Brant Gardner]

Your statements are contrary to the Brethren.  They either say that the totality of the Americas is the land choice above all others or they say that the United States is in the land choice above all others. 

 

“To the peoples who should inhabit this blessed land of the Americas, the Western Hemisphere, an ancient prophet uttered this significant promise and solemn warning:  Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, . . . For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. (Book of Mormon, Ether 2:10 and 12.)”  (E.T. Benson, CR, Oct. 1944, 128.)

 

“The world is wrong and we have to right it under the direction of Heaven. For this purpose are we located upon the land of Zion, and the land of Zion is North and South America—the land where our heavenly Father made his appearance and planted the Garden of Eden. This land is choice above all other lands upon the face of the earth.” (B. Young, JoD 10:222.)

 

Moreover, although it has been a few years, I once read all the temple dedicatory prayers for temples in the Americas.  From Canada to Brazil, the lands were described as the lands of father Lehi.  I need to go back and look for verbiage discussed in this post.

 

I have dozens more examples.  

Bob, if your point is that the brethren had used the entire hemisphere as a promised land, I would agree with you. I also think that trying to make any argument about what was relevant 2500 hundred years ago runs the risk of presentism. There is a big difference between the promised land of the Old World and the land of promise in the New. While the Old World's promised land was a place that the Lord said would be theirs, in the New World it was always a conditional. That condition stayed with the Nephites every time they moved to a new location. There was no Jerusalem that could become sacred from beginning to end. The city of Nephi gave way to the city of Zarahemla, and near the end of the Book of Mormon we aren't sure. The promise was not permanent as in the Old World, but conditional. It applied upon righteousness--and was removed when they weren't righteous. 

 

Of course, most who read "promised land" in the Book of Mormon simply relate it to the Bible without noting the differences. Now it has become a point of nationalistic interpretation--and I think that is a dangerous thing. I prefer the brethren extending the promise to all in all lands. There is no reason not to believe that the promise of protection upon righteousness wouldn't also apply to those who join the church in the Old World in modern times. The spiritual use of the promise applies--but shouldn['t be used as a determination of where the Book of Mormon Nephites lived. That mixes modern usage with ancient, and conflates definitions.

[Bob Crockett]

I think you are not addressing my point.

 

The land "choice above all others" was considered by modern day prophets to be all of the Americas.  Nothing ever said about any limited concept.  Indeed, I don't ever see the Brethren saying that the United States is the land choice above all others, but that it is "in" the land choice above all others.

 

Whether it was "conditional" or related to the Bible somehow, or "nationalist interpretation" is not related to my point.

 

Time to get beyond trying to argue for a limited geography.  The discussion is one of revealed truth, not secular truth.

Edited August 23, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Brant Gardner]

I think you are not addressing my point.

 

The land "choice above all others" was considered by modern day prophets to be all of the Americas.  Nothing ever said about any limited concept.  Indeed, I don't ever see the Brethren saying that the United States is the land choice above all others, but that it is "in" the land choice above all others.

 

Whether it was "conditional" or related to the Bible somehow, or "nationalist interpretation" is not related to my point.

 

Time to get beyond trying to argue for a limited geography.  The discussion is one of revealed truth, not secular truth.

Apparently I was not clear about how I see your point. I agree that modern prophets have included populations from the entire hemisphere in their definitions of a choice land. I think that is appropriate. I don't think it does, or could, describe the specific place where Nephites lived. What they experienced and what we experience are very different. I don't mind thinking that I am living in a choice land--even though it is New Mexico and it is hot and dry (which I kind of like). However, California before modern peoples messed it up was really a choice land. Highland Guatemala is beautiful and has wonderful weather year round. How God's promises apply is quite different from the way the people lived to whom He originally made that promise.

[Robert F. Smith]

Let me start with the second question. Either are possible. However, if I assume that all anachronisms are ancient, I have a harder time with your first question.

 

As for the first, notice that the untranslated terms are in the book of Ether. My hypothesis is that the Nephites knew what the animals were, Joseph translated what seemed to be a possible animal. When Mosiah translated Ether (I think Moroni just used Mosiah's translation), there were some animals that they did not recognize and so Mosiah kept their Jaredite names. As the Nephites didn't know them and they entered the text as transliterations rather than translations, Joseph couldn't get the sense of what they were either--so the transliteration was retained.

Would you place sheum and neas of Mosiah 9:9 in that same class of transliterations from Jaredite times?

[Brant Gardner]

Would you place sheum and neas of Mosiah 9:9 in that same class of transliterations from Jaredite times?

I think they may fall closer to the issue of names. Because they fall into a list of otherwise translated seeds, they wouldn't be recognized and therefore the name preserved. The evidence for names is that there is a more literalist translation. I admit that I don't have any explanation for them that fits any model as nicely as I would like.

[Bob Crockett]

I agree that modern prophets have included populations from the entire hemisphere in their definitions of a choice land. I think that is appropriate. I don't think it does, or could, describe the specific place where Nephites lived. What they experienced and what we experience are very different. I don't mind thinking that I am living in a choice land--even though it is New Mexico and it is hot and dry (which I kind of like). However, California before modern peoples messed it up was really a choice land. Highland Guatemala is beautiful and has wonderful weather year round. How God's promises apply is quite different from the way the people lived to whom He originally made that promise.

 

The issue raised by your post is whether "choice land" prophecies of the Book of Mormon related to some place in MesoAmerica or to the entirety of the Book of Mormon.  I countered with two quotes from living prophets to show that your view of "choice land" was incorrect.

 

So, perhaps it might be a tad argument-shifting to talk about nice places to live and take a vacation.  You're such a nice guy and I agree with so much of what you write about the BoM even though it might conflict on occasion with old standard FARMS' views; you're just off like so many others on this Sorenson stuff.  He didn't use acceptable methodology and his geographic speculations are way way off.

Edited August 23, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[why me]

If the book of mormon is a historical fraud, the mastermind of a frauster, it is unfortunate that none of the witnesses confirmed the fraud. It would have only taken one of the witnesses, especially one of the three witnessnes to say that it was all just a fraud and time to move on. But none of the 11 witnesses did.

 

One is left to conclude that if the book is a fraud, there were many psychopaths living around Joseph Smith. People that would allow other people to believe in such a fraud would take a sociopath or psychopath to allow it. So, we are left with a problem: could 11 people, some who left the mormon church, be so evil as to submit to such a fraud and maintain it throughout their lives at others expense?

 

And then we have joseph and emma, two more psychos who would have known of the fraud, if it were a historical fraud.

[Robert F. Smith]

Would you place sheum and neas of Mosiah 9:9 in that same class of transliterations from Jaredite times?

I think they may fall closer to the issue of names. Because they fall into a list of otherwise translated seeds, they wouldn't be recognized and therefore the name preserved. The evidence for names is that there is a more literalist translation. I admit that I don't have any explanation for them that fits any model as nicely as I would like.

Some of us have speculated that they are transliterations for New World food plants otherwise unknown to Joseph Smith, e.g., amaranth, jocote (mombin), manioc (cassava), chiles, quinoa, or the like.

 

Moreover, since Assyriologists had been reading a particular cuneiform sign as she'um (Old Akkadian šeʼum) for over a century, and since it was a very popular term for "grain" (variously "barley, cereal, pignola, pine-nut"), it seemed to fit the context very well.  The last two decades have seen major doubts thrown on that form for the word, but could generations of cuneiform scholars have been so wrong?

One might also compare Old Akkadian ás, “resin, seed, cereal, emmer-wheat," as an element in neas.

 

See http://valsederholm.blogspot.com/2011/04/and-with-neas-and-with-sheum-mosiah-99.html .  Naturally, these suggestions would entail a carryover of Jaredite terms.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[canard78]

I believe you misunderstand. How does someone who receives a sure spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon's divine authenticity explain to someone who hasn't received the same witness why and how he knows the Book of Mormon is true? It's like trying to explain to a man totally blind from birth what the color azure blue looks like. When those who have a testimony of the Spirit that the Book of Mormon is the word of God try to explain the spiritual dynamic that produced and sustains that spiritual knowledge, they realize they're now faceed with Paul's conundrum: which is that unless someone has been enlightened by the Spirit of God, it's impossible to explain to that that person, to any degree of fleshly satisfaction, what it's like to be enlightened by the Spirit.

So what do those who possess a testimony of the Spirit do? They resort to trying to explain the workings of the Spirit in some sort of rational way so that the spiritually unenlightenec might catch a glimpse as to why the enlightened know the Book of Mormon is true, and they do so with arguments like, "I know an uneducated farm boy could not have produced that magnificent, holy book without God's help." So don't confuse attempts at rational explanations to help the unenlightenec understand a rreasonable case can be made that the Book of Mormon may very well be true, with precisely how the enlightened actually KNOW by the revelations of the Spirit that the Book of Mormon is true.

Read the seven quotes at the end of this post. Let me know how these spiritual experiences support your point. If someone can describe an experience similar to yours but for contradicting views, how can it be seen as in any way reliable. Useful maybe, but not reliable.

http://manyotherhands.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/what-is-lifes-priority-is-it-knowing-or.html?m=1

[Robert F. Smith]

Read the seven quotes at the end of this post. Let me know how these spiritual experiences support your point. If someone can describe an experience similar to yours but for contradicting views, how can it be seen as in any way reliable. Useful maybe, but not reliable.

http://manyotherhands.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/what-is-lifes-priority-is-it-knowing-or.html?m=1

Yes, and I like Allen Shaw's comments at the close.

 

As I see it, canard, your problem is in trying to measure the subjective via objective means, which entirely begs the question because it is a contradiction in terms.  By its nature, a testimony is personal and non-transferrable.  The great student of worldwide religions and symbols, Joseph Campbell, liked to conceive of the vast array of religions and their apparent surface differences as a great symphony at the transpersonal, archetypal level.  You're not seeing the forest for the trees.

[theplains]

What do Latter-day Saints make of Whitmer's letter to all believers?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Robert F. Smith]

What do Latter-day Saints make of Whitmer's letter to all believers?

 

Thanks,

Jim

David Whitmer was a very influential apostate from the true Church, but Whitmerite factions have had a tendency to dissipate over time -- believing as they do that Joseph Smith was an apostate.

[canard78]

What do Latter-day Saints make of Whitmer's letter to all believers?

Thanks,

Jim

I remember smiling wryly a few years back when the teacher was quoting from the lesson manual which was quoting from that letter. It used a couple of paragraphs. The wry smile was because I knew that if the quote had continued a little further we'd have Whitmer denouncing the organisation I was with.

[canard78]

Yes, and I like Allen Shaw's comments at the close.

As I see it, canard, your problem is in trying to measure the subjective via objective means, which entirely begs the question because it is a contradiction in terms. By its nature, a testimony is personal and non-transferrable. The great student of worldwide religions and symbols, Joseph Campbell, liked to conceive of the vast array of religions and their apparent surface differences as a great symphony at the transpersonal, archetypal level. You're not seeing the forest for the trees.

I'm a researcher by profession. You don't have to worry about me not knowing the difference.

Spiritual evidence is entirely subjective. That's why it's individually useful but not reliable (as with most subjective things).

Evidence of the Book of Mormon's hiatoricity? Fairly subjective too for now. The evidence is too soft to be anything else. What I see as unconvincing, you see otherwise. Not because one of us is demonstrably right or wrong, but because it's subjective.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Evidence of the Book of Mormon's hiatoricity? 

 

Evidence for Universalism?