Kevin Christensen

Regarding the premise that begins this thread: There is this problem: We cannot say that Bacon was irrational or unscientific. But he was not dealing directly with the sorts of issues that Copernicus and Galileo and Kepler raised. And he was not even trying to imagine how things might look to an observer on an earth that moved around a sun. And that leads to this observation by Hofstadter, that Kuhn talks about how in the sciences Kuhn explains that in making a paradigm choice even in the sciences, a scientist "must, that is have faith that the new paradigm will succeed with the many problems that confront it, knowing only that the older paradigm has failed in a few. A decision of that kind can only be made by faith." (Kuhn 158.) So, based on evidence available, and experiments performed so far, which is always limited and incomplete, there is no escape from faith, nor from the implications that Positivism as an ideology, the notion that only evidence examined via Positivistic ideology, counts and therefore nothing beyond what is proven via such a fixed system of propositions, can exist. (Nibley's Sophic and Mantic essays in The Ancient State: The Rulers and the Ruler, are a reminder just how old some supposedly modern ideologies are, and also just how much the means we select to measure things also turns out to rule what we then experience. (The number of meanings in Nibley's title just keeps expanding on me.) And even so, sometimes scientists, who are sure they have a complete handle on everything that is, can run into something that does not fit their expectations. This one goes on for about 40 minutes before a scientific investigation of death runs of the rails and into unexpected territory for this set of investigators. And Barbour in turn, explains that All pf this means that I do notice, whenever I read anything by someone who claims to have taken the complete measure of the cosmos, the claims of Jesus, and Joseph Smith, and even little old me, is that I always notice that I have performed some experiments, considered some data and experience, that they have not, and that ideology, not just evidence and logic, is always present. And that leaves me with a very comfortable, not at all cramped and fragile, room for faith. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA

I've read the Dialogue essay on Historicity issues linked to the start of this discussion a few times now. I think this comment in the essay is key: That reminds me of this comment about Bacon by Karl Popper: The point is that in just the way that Bacon argues for an unquestionable Ptolemaic view, with the Sun at the center of things, on grounds of overwhelming obviousness, so it seems to him, but without addressing the problematic issue of planetary motions, the troublesome epicycles that troubled Copernicus and Kepler, and Galileo enough to rethink theory and observations, so the supposedly obvious and unquestionable "hemispheric language" ignores all of the telling textual details in the Book of Mormon that when considered, preclude such a reading. If the Land of Nephi in the South is about 21 days on foot to Zarahemla also in the South, for a mixed group of families and flocks, and Limhi's explorers must have known that when they went from their location in the Land of Nephi, looking for Zarahemla, and passed through the narrow neck into a Jaredite location and could mistake it for Zarahemla, that precludes a hemispheric geography. None those who offered a hemispheric interpretation have ever mentioned this. That is like Bacon, addressing the obvious, without accounting for the telling details of planetary motion. And If the early Saints obviously thought of the indigenous peoples of the New World as Lamanites, it does not show that they paid close attention to the fact that Jacob, a first generation writer in the Book of Mormon, in his first public discourse, for the newly relocated portion the community that followed Nephi from the Land of the First Inheritance, is on the theme of how "how “Gentiles shall be blessed and numbered among the house of Israel” (2 Nephi 10:18), and in his own book makes the point that he and the book will use "Lamanite" as a blanket term for political unfriendlies, not as a designation of lineage, nor of righteousness. It makes a great deal of sense, Kuhn says, to ask "Which paradigm is better?" where the question of "better" should be asked in terms that are not completely paradigm dependent. And because deciding which paradigm is better always involves deciding, "Which problems are more significant to have solved?" that means conclusions will differ. We are not forced to conclusions by facts, but persuaded to them in terms of what we choose to notice and to most value, based on different paradigmatic frameworks. That is exactly why Jesus says criticism should start with self-criticism, checking on the beams in one's own eye first. The beams, I think, being our preconceived ways of thinking. We cannot argue that Bacon, the father of the scientific method, was not being scientific or rational or logical, but we can clearly see that he was not self-critical of his own assumptions. The beam in his own eye obscured his vision and as a consequence, he did not see clearly. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better. (Luke 5:38–39) Williams rather neatly illustrates the point that "all data are theory laden" by offering an abstract description of of a text meant to suggest the Book of Mormon when he subsequently reveals that it is a notably dubious "The Travels of Marco Polo." In this, we should notice that paradigms are by definition, established by standard examples of scientific work. We learn to see one situation as like another. The likening both establishes the paradigm that defines a way of seeing. Williams then says this: Which problems are more significant to have solved? That question defines the change from the Old Maxwell Institute to the new on in 2016. Should we speak to the scholars (meaning, the dominant consensus at the Universities, or the Saints? They deliberately chose the universities and formalized that with the massive website overhaul in 2016. Williams moves to say this: Joseph Campbell explains in various places (such as The Power of Myth) that one of the functions of a mythology is to "sustain a particular social order." Various stories and labels applied to allow a high level dismissal of both the Book of Mormon and the best scholar's who defend it operate for exactly this purpose. A story is told about "parallelomania" or "defense attorneys who start with conclusions" rather than "investigators objectively following the facts where ever they lead." We then are to take those stories as paradigmatic, as providing a way to pre-assess and value whole bodies of work by hundreds of scholars using a range of professional specialties without need to bother with the details. Williams discusses the issue of colonialism, how the concept of Lamanite affects the self-identity of various LDS members to whom the label was been applied, and also the attitudes of various groups of LDS in their attitudes towards them. But I cannot help but notice that in all that blunt and serious consideration of various conflicted interests and attitudes, there is no discussion of the implications of Jacob's political definition as "those who seek to destroy the people of Nephi" (Jacob 1:14), his discussion of how the Gentiles "Shall bring thy sons in their arms, and they daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders" (2 Nephi 6:6) and on how “Gentiles shall be blessed and numbered among the house of Israel” (2 Nephi 10:18). So we are mixed together, and all the children of God, and are all to treat one another as such, regardless of lineage and what matters most is how we behave. And overall, I think of this: So I always find it illuminating to consider the stories and notions a person puts forward as dominant metaphors, to which we are to liken everything, and through which, various people suggest we view at least a portion of the world, for various reasons, and with different degrees of self-reflection, offer as keys to understanding. We can't escape such things. But we ought to be self-aware, as a first step. Of the beams in our eyes. "Then shall ye see clearly." FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA

More precisely, that is Burnett's report of what Harris said. Richard L. Anderson has much to say about building a picture on first hand reports that are part of a consistent picture versus second hand, later reports that appear anomalous and inconsistent. Notice that Burnett's report of Harris's report of the 8 witnesses experience is 3rd hand hearsay. Not to be preferred to what the eight themselves reported. It says nothing about the experiences of Emma Smith and Mary Whitmer. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA

All good questions, Juliann, as usual. I can provide detailed references on what what the Bible describes as the 28 defining characteristics of a prophet. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/prophettestsfv5.pdf I include notice that the 70 or so arguments by Biblical peoples against true prophets always boil down to them saying "It's not what I think" and/or "It's not what I want." When Jesus says, "By their fruits shall ye know them," he compares that to distinguishing figs from thistles, or grapes from thorns, that is based on their defining characteristics rather than against one's personal, subjective taste, personal preference and desire. A perfect thorn is not a grape and therefore did not come from a grape vine. And even a bird-pecked grape or raisin, however distasteful it may appear to you, demonstrates a connection to a living grape vine. When I first assembled all of the Biblical tests, I wondered why no one had done before? Anyone could have done it, and no one had. Eventually I realized that if you measure the prophets against your own personal taste and desire, that ensures you get an answer that you want, one that won't require the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit. The process of discerning true prophets is designed to call forth that that kind of sacrifice, putting at risk what we think and what we want, and the arguments against true prophets always simultaneously define exactly where a person will not sacrifice what they think and what they want. For example, Jesus says criticism should begin by being self-critical, removing the beams from one's own eye. such as a faulty expectation of true prophets. "Then shall ye see clearly." For example, one argument that Jesus did not measure up to an observer's high ideals is "Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that this man [Lazarus] should not have died?" This is a variation on the common "bad things happening to good people demonstrates that there is no God" meme, and the usefulness of "raising the bar" higher when confronted by notable "cause to believe." And it also bears examination in light of the Hofstadter quote I frequently offer: "The important thing to remember is that proofs are demonstrations within fixed systems of propositions." and "Godel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiomatic system is involved." The arguments that rest on the proposition that "It's not how I would have things be if I were God" always rest on the demonstrably feeble proposition that if God exists, he would do it my way. That is, such thinking is a beam in one's own eye that distorts our perception of what is real. We cannot see clearly if we think that way. And Jesus is notably cautionary against "reading the words as they are written" with the Parable of the Sower, noting that the same words planted in different soil, nurtured in different ways, can produce vastly different harvests. "Know ye not this parable? How then can ye know all parables?" At the trial of Jesus, those who testified that he claimed that he would tear down the temple and raise it in three days, demonstrate exactly the reason for his cautionary language. What I think it means just, possibly, may not be what Jesus meant, or meant to do, or accomplish. Isaiah 55 eloquently explores the notion that "My word shall accomplish what I intend..." as a long term process, based on his perspective and plan, and understanding. Not ours. But we can learn to see from him, to acquire a greater understanding, at the simple cost of making the sacrifice of a broken heart, and a contrite spirit. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA

Richard L. Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses remains an essential classic. It includes an apt chapter on "The Case Against the Witnesses." He also produced an important chapter on "The Personal Writings of the Book of Mormon Witnesses" in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited. https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/personal-writings-book-mormon-witnesses FAIR has this on the eight. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Statement_of_the_Eight_Witnesses and the three. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Statement_of_the_Three_Witnesses And of course, Anderson also has chapter on the informal witnesses, including Mary Whitmer and Emma Smith. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA

Good. And it looks like you started reading her before I did. Well done! Summer 1999, stumbling onto a copy of The Great Angel at a Dallas Half Price books.

At length and in detail, using references like those in the PowerPoint I used in the interview by Robert Boylan. The main issue is that the 2 Kings account is in the Bible, which means, "the Bible says that Josiah was the best and most perfect King since Moses." If the Bible says it in the obvious proof text, it must be so. Nothing more to think about. No other information to consider, including other parts of the Bible. I responded to Bill Hamblin's "Vindicating Josiah," who was in fact my editor for "Paradigms Regained" in an Interpreter essay in 2016. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/prophets-and-kings-in-lehis-jerusalem-and-margaret-barkers-temple-theology/ Barker herself gave a talk at BYU on Josiah in 2003, which was published in Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem. Her key insight for me there that "Josiah's changes concerned the high priests, and were thus, changes at the very heart of the temple." It's online here. She also shows that the religion that Josiah suppresses was not Canaanite but rather the religion of Abraham and the patriarchs, and that all of the elements that Josiah suppressed reappear in Christianity. And for LDS, the fact that Josiah burned and destroyed the tree of life, and that Lehi has a vision of the tree of life should draw some consideration. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mi/39/ I responded at length to the BYU Studies essay by Eliason/Crawford in a section of "Twenty Years after Paradigms Regained" Part 2, pages 65-68. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/twenty-years-after-paradigms-regained-part-2-responding-to-margaret-barkers-critics-and-why-her-work-should-matter-to-latter-day-saints/ I've got more in a forthcoming essay responding to Grant Hardy's ever so brief dismissal in The Annotated Book of Mormon. My response is not ever so brief. But here is what he says, and how I start to respond. The arguments I have dealt with basically treat the question of Josiah as a bad influence as unthinkable. So there is very little engagement with Barker's case, or mine for that matter. Just a dismissal of the notion that a case to the contrary could be made by anyone. Hamblin comes closest to engagement, but even he does not engage her evidence closely. Hamblin points to Jer. 44:17-23, as criticizing the Queen of Heaven. But I see the situation as requiring a much broader take to demonstrate Jeremiah's attitude. That verse, I think, ought to be read in parallel with Jeremiah's critique of the Jerusalem temple. He was not anti-Temple, but very opposed to the notion of ritual without accompanying repentance. Incidentally, Barker's most detailed approach to Jeremiah is in the Mother of the Lord. Hardy and Elaison and Julie Smith (a very good scholar in her other work) all just dismiss the question that Josiah might have done something bad, and don't seriously wrestle with the opposition and the published arguments out there. ""By proving contrarities, truth is made manifest," said Joseph Smith. By suppressing contrarities, ideology is manifest. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA

When did you meet her? I managed at the BYU Seminar in 2003 in Provo, the Joseph Smith Conference in 2005, when she spoke in Yonkers, NY to the Orthodox leaders there in 2012, when she was at FAIR in Provo in 2015 (I saw her talking there with Maxine Hanks who had recently been rebaptized), and once in 2016, when my wife and I got back to Europe for the first time since our missions, we visited Hugh and Margaret at their home in Derbyshire for dinner. There are many other LDS scholars I know who have spent more time with her than I have, Jack Welch and Professor Hall, for instance. And when I spoke at the Conference on Hebrews at BYU, I met two women who had taken her summer school classes in England. They said about a third of the attendees were LDS, and that Barker likes them "Because they know what I am talking about."

Expectations are important. And with respect to expectations, "What should I expect?" turns out to be a very different question that "What do I expect?" and it's frequent companion "What do I want?" D&C 1 formally states what I should expect: That expectation is, I submit, consistent with the evidence of the Bible and all of human history. The notion that God would not permit or allow individuals or societies to do or think anything that might not full embody his will is not the lesson I get from, say, the story of Samuel and Saul and Israel's desire for a King, or of Samuel's sons, or of David, or Solomon, or the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, or the crucifixion of Jesus, or Peter's denial, or the loss of 116 pages of translation, or Mountain Meadows, or John C. Bennet, or ... anything really. M. Scott Peck famously said that "Sanity is commitment to reality at all costs." And the cost of discovering reality always turns out to be what Jesus calls the sacrifice of a broken heart, and a contrite spirit. Asking "What should I expect?" involves being self-critical, not just judgmental relative to what I think is so, and what I want to be so. Truth is knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come. Getting that knowledge is a tall order. We see partially, and through a glass darkly. We can improve, but that requires repentance, as an ongoing eternal process. Not stasis on grounds that if we have the Truth, then nothing can or should change. Of the "only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth with which I the Lord am well pleased,"... the passage goes on to deliberately and realistically describe the Lord Membership bestows opportunity and accountability. Not exclusive virtue and perfect leaders and an ideal history free of human folly. Asking whether the LDS Church leaders have, at times demonstrated important inspiration, is a very different question than asking whether they have behaved always like God's own sock puppets, on the assumption that we are currently capable of evaluating that case in light of current personal knowledge. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA

I do have Temple Mysticism on my shelf. I reviewed it for Interpreter several years back. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/book-review-temple-mysticism-an-introduction-by-margaret-barker/ My first serious exposure to mysticism came from reading a chapter in Nibley's The World and The Prophets where mysticism involved "“an intuitive and ecstatic union with the deity obtained by means of contemplation and other mental exercises.”3 He emphasizes the incommunicable nature of the experiences, the impersonal view of deity, and the need for a teacher/guide to direct the student on the path to illumination." The important thing for LDS readers is that Barker defines mysticism differently. For her, it involves "seeing the Lord." Her defining examples of temple mystics are Isaiah and John. With Isaiah, she cites the vision in Isaiah 6, in which the prophet reports, “I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne.” She then comments that “John identified the enthroned figure of Isaiah’s vision as Jesus in glory, showing that Jesus’ closest disciples understood him in the context of temple mysticism, and indeed identified him as the figure at the very centre of the mystical vision” (p. 2). Barker explains that “Jesus himself received visions in the manner of temple mystics, and that these formed the core of Revelation,” and she says that recognizing this is “important for recovering temple mysticism and for establishing its key role in early Christianity” (p. 24). As to her etymology, I'm impressed. She started teaching herself Hebrew when she was 13, and continues to be fascinated with word play, which she see as a characteristic aspect of the Wisdom style., and also variant texts, alternate readings, the effect of different contextualization and nurture, Targums and the patterns that emerge from them. You might compare the kinds of things that Matthew Bowen has been exploring in his essays and books. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/author/matthewb/?journal Plus I think of Joseph Smith's comment in D&C 128: 18 "I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands. It is sufficient to know, in this case,..." I think of Jesus speaking to the Nephites at the temple in 3 Nephi 17:2-3 "I perceive that ye are weak, that ye cannot understand all my words which I am commanded of the Father to speak unto you at this time. Therefore, go ye unto your homes, and ponder upon the things which I have said, and ask of the Father, in my name, that ye may understand, and prepare your minds for the morrow, and I come unto you again." And 2 Nephi 25:5 "there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews." Plus some of Joseph Smith's annotations in Fascimile 2. "If the world can find out these numbers, so let it be. Amen." and "The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give at the present time." That leaves us room for expansion, for not only finding more in the translation we have in the Book of Mormon, but drawing on further light and knowledge. And I always come away from Barker with a feeling that my mind has been expanded, my understanding enlightened. I think it can be a worthwhile project to plug her insights into our scriptures and see what comes to light. She's not a rival to the Restoration, but is I think, a part of it. Only that reasonably explains to me the depth of fit and ongoing fruitfulness her work has with the Restoration. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA

Well, I am an English major, and we studied Keats. Ode to a Grecian Urn. Interesting guy, some lovely work. I prefer, and am far more impressed by William Blake. who died in 1827, just too soon to have read the Book of Mormon, alas. I have long had an ambition to compare Blake and Joseph Smith at length, but time and resources and other life demands divert me. But before I settled on my English Major and finished it at San Jose State, I attended the University of Utah 18th Branch, where a recent convert explained that his path to the LDS faith went through the Romantic poets. He saw something new and impressive coming into the world through the Romantics a kind of inspiration, and breaking of mental shackles, and wanted to see what it was all pointing towards. What was all this world shaking inspiration a precursor for and what was it pointing to. So he found, and read the Book of Mormon. Ode to a Grecian Urn is a lovely poem, but I see the context of Lehi's Journey from Jerusalem in 600 BCE to Bountiful as something far more than a dying poet's creative mediation on the tension between the static chase, static life, unheard music, potential sacrifice, depicted on an urn, Keats, dying, contemplating the tension between the stasis of the art, the fleeting, dynamic life, it depicted, and his own immanent mortality. Lehi too, was a poet, as was Nephi, of a different sort, using different forms. But the same opposing tensions that mark the distance between the art of the urn and the life it points towards, also appear in Lehi's and Nephi's poetry. Opposition in all things. Creative tension that testifies and illuminates the creator. Something quite different than a longing for absolutes. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA

Analytics wrote: That is Joseph Smith being careful and precise about what Joseph personally saw. What that implies to you (not to me) about Martin Harris's first-hand experience (not Joseph's and not yours) is far less important to me than what Harris did and said in relation to that witness for the rest of his life. And what the witnesses collectively demonstrate. And, on top of that, my own wide ranging explorations of the Book of Mormon demonstrate in comparison to a succession of competing explanations I have tested. Regarding what is and what is not proven, I keep quoting this from Hofstadter. "The important thing to keep in mind is that proofs are demonstrations within fixed systems of propositions" and that "Godel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiomatic system is involved." (Godel, Escher and Bach, 18-19.) And this from Ian Barbour on the same situation, on the notion that some branch of science has definitively falsified my LDS faith: https://www.religion-online.org/book-chapter/chapter-6-paradigms-in-science/ From Barbour's wonderful book, Myths, Models and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion. One of my all time favorite books. What a person chooses to measure, and what measurements they choose to generalize and how far they apply those generalizations tends to be very telling. But such generalizations always fall short of demonstrating final omniscience. A few weeks ago, my wife ran across this exploration of Death, which begins where you think, with medical definitions. But does not end there. From Analytics: Does he now? I just peeked at what Wikipedia has to say: "Naturalism – he doesn’t favour the word atheism – defines the world entirely in terms of physical forces, fields and entities, and these forces and fields are unforgiving: they do not permit telekinesis, psychic powers, miracles, life after death or an immortal soul."[2] Robert P. Crease in his review for Nature praised The Big Picture for its ambition and directness while finding Carroll's treatment of philosophical topics unsatisfyingly shallow..." Nibley's essays on the Sophic and Mantic are relevant. As is Ian Barbour. From Analytics: It's of interest to me to have come across the ancient Jewish traditions of Messiah Ben Joseph, who would initiate the gathering of Israel to prepare for the coming of Messiah Ben Judah. John Tvedtnes was teaching in Jerusalem, thinking he'd describe the life of Joseph Smith, and then introduce the Messiah Ben Joseph Traditions. It turned out he didn't have to. The Rabbis in his class started whispering about Messiah Ben Joseph before he finished with Joseph Smith. (There is a good essay on the topic by Joseph McConkie in the Religious Studies volume on Isaiah and the Prophets., online now) But regarding the claim that the Book of Mormon lacks specificity on what happens after it was published, well D&C 3 is pretty confident on what will happen, and what has in fact happened. But as to specificity in the Book of Mormon, there is 1 Nephi 13:20-41 on the transmission of the Hebrew Bible, the loss of plain and precious things, the eventual appearance of the Book of Mormon, and then the subsequent discovery of other books via the Gentiles that will also restore the lost plain and precious things, including many "covenants of the Lord," 1 Nephi 13:26, and notice that the "Early Christians in Disarray" volume has a detailed chapter on the "Loss of Covenant in Christian History" and beyond that Robert Murray's important book The Cosmic Covenant aka the Eternal Covenant, or Covenant of Peace, or the Covenant between God and Every Living Creature, the knowledge of which has thereby been restored as a plain and precious thing,) and specifically the notion that "these last records which thou hast seen shall establish the truth of the first...and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world..." I've been making the case that Margaret Barker has drawn on recently discovered texts outside the Bible that have been discovered and published via the gentles to demonstrate knowledge of the Eternal Covenant and to argue that the Lamb of God (i.e. the Servant in Isaiah... Lamb and Servant have the same consonants in Aramaic) was Yahweh, the Son of El Elyon God Most High and is the Savior of the World. That is very specific and detailed and not something anticipated or expected outside of Nephi's prophesy. It happens that Barker's "Text and Context" essay and 1 Nephi 13 tell the same story about the loss and restoration of plain and precious things. And there are details in the Book of Mormon like this, in Alma 2, as Larry Poulson points out: He shows how the details given in the Book of Mormon match the geography to the extent that: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf If that was the only correspondence, it would be pretty cool, but there is far, far more to it than that. And on the Journey from Jerusalem to Bountiful. For me to be persuaded from my faith, I would require a theory that actually predicts and accounts for these kinds of details, and much much more that I have learned in 50 years of serious study. Regarding ancient writing on metal, there are many examples relevant to the Book of Mormon. But the Brass Plates, the 24 Jaredite plates, and Nephi's small and large plates amount to one example from Jerusalem, one from the Jaredites and two related sets from the Nephite records. I would not over-generalize about what kind of evidence to expect from the ancient world based on those notable, exceptional texts. Most of the records were on perishable materials. Yet I am fascinated that the oldest surviving Biblical text dates to Jersusalem and 600 BCE and includes the priestly blessing from Numbers 6 about May the Lord's face Shine upon you, which is relevant to the opening of the Book of Mormon and the controversies of the Deuteronomists, and the plates of Laban and its Books of Moses and to the climax of the Book of Mormon where the Lord's face shines on the surviving Nephites gathered at the temple in direct fulfillment of that specific blessing, recorded on metal in Jerusalem. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA

There is this on what is, from Jesus, who should know, and what is not doctrine, and on the dire consequences of offering up anything more or less. Notably missing from the definition of "my doctrine" is any comprehensive list or reference to a Big Book of What to Think, or Orthodox Authority, or traditional understanding of any particular notion, let alone, anything about race whatsoever. Definitive and telling in relation to that alternate foundation candidate are ongoing Repentance (which means to turn our minds), which includes not only repentance from sin, but also from ignorance, error and misinformation as an ongoing process, and seeking Holy Ghost (that is, ongoing revelation, rather than embracing a Big Book of What to Think). Building one's foundation elsewhere is inviting catastrophic failure, which, of course, some have reason to invite. They want the rhetorical advantage that pointing to spectacular failure bestows upon those who point and mock, and nevermind the problem of lacking a foundation themselves. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Canonsburg, PA

Robert Boylan had a Zoom with me on Saturday. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA

Back in 1998 or so, when I lived in Lawrence, KS, FARMS arranged to have a traveling Dead Sea Scrolls Exhibit at the Topeka Stake House. My wife and I were ushers. For a time, I stood next to a life-sized replica of the Golden Plates. One thing that struck me powerfully on that occasion is that the replica was singularly unimpressive at a glance. The characters on the top few plates seemed all wrong, not looking like ancient engravings or gold for a moment, but rather looking like a prop, not the creation of a dedicated artisan, but of a workman. A stand in for something real that it did not bother to fully embody. Just to give the idea, to fill a space, but not to be real. The characters on the next few pages were clearly not even trying to resemble ancient writings, and most of the leaves were blank. The weight and texture of the materials was wrong, especially compared to the eye-witness descriptions from Joseph and Emma and various other witnesses. I've also read Richard L. Anderson's Investigating the Three Witnesses, and various attempts to simply brush aside the various testimonies, notably the hyper-focus on "spiritual eyes" compared to first hand responses by David Whitmer and Harris and Oliver Cowdery. And the eight, and the other informal witnesses. One very strong impression I got from reading Anderson's research is that the plates were very real to Joseph and his associates and his neighbors. Even those who never saw them knew he had something real. They searched the house to find them. Emma moving the plates around, rustling the pages with her thumb, does not fall under the knowing, cynical dismissal of the product of "spiritual eyes." Whitmer, of course, insisted that spiritual eyes was enhanced perception of something real. An angel and plates. But the eight and Emma did not describe their experience as spiritual eyes. Rather physical encounters. If Joseph Smith had the resources to produce the prop plates as mediocre as the ones I saw, I cannot imagine them having the required effects on anyone, let alone securing Harris's financial backing, or the lifelong assertions from the witnesses, even after they left the church. They were simply not good enough. The Kinderhook plates caused a bit of a stir, but nothing comparable to the Golden Plates. Who tried to buy them? Nor a potentially ruinous farm mortgage? Not even like the Nauvoo community effort to raise a few thousand, as happened with the Egyptian Papyrus? What life changing text did they induce? How about angels and witnesses? No. Just a parasitic exploitation of a circumstance much larger and much more profound than they were or could ever be. And eventually exposed as a fraud, a joke, while the Story of Joseph Smith's plates goes around the world. One thing about the plates I find very interesting is that they caused an impressive stir and produced effects, not just the witnesses, and scorn from some neighbors. But we have a large and impressive book that Joseph says he translated from the plates. Now Stirling McMurrin famously told Blake Ostler that "I learned when I was younger than I can remember that you don't get books from angels and translate them by revelation. It's just that simple." I find two things very significant in that. It wasn't McMurrin's extensive education and life experience and careful investigation that led him to that conclusion, but rather, a child's insight that he never subsequently outgrew or questioned. "Younger than I can remember." And McMurrin never bothered to read the Book of Mormon. He wrote an essay when Signature published the Roberts Study, and that was that. Deferring to Roberts as "Authority" when Roberts in 1923 did not have the resources for testing the Book in context that we have now. Would Roberts have discarded Nibley and Sorenson and Gardner and Welch and FARMS as not worth reading? I think not. Or would he have welcomed and embraced them? I think so. Joseph Smith not only produced plates that secured lifelong testimonies from the three, and the eight, and his wife, and Mary Whitmer, and a neighbor who claimed to have seen plates through a window, but a life that was extraordinary. And even more extraordinary than the story of the plates and the witnesses, their subsequent lives, and Joseph Smith's life, is the published translation, The Book of Mormon. One of the oldest revelations we have, one of the earliest writings in church history is D&C 3, from July 1828, produced after Joseph Smith had lost the 116 pages, lost the plates and the Urim and Thummim, and has at that point absolutely nothing going for him except spectacular failure, and that short revelation. "Nevertheless, my work shall go forth..." And it has gone forth through all the world. Is that an effect without a cause? If not real plates and inspiration, and angels, what caused the extraordinary outcome? And "somehow" does not measure up if we require puzzle definition and testability, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise as criteria for evaluating the worth of the paradigm. Not just a book, but a book that has been scrutinized from a wide range specific questions by thousands of trained specialists drawing on resources that no one in the world had access to in Joseph Smith's day. Here is a book that describes cultures and regions and a wide range of human experience on an epic scale, ranging from Asia, and Jerusalem 600 BCE, and a detailed journey across the Arabian Desert, and to the New World. I've read a wide range of counter-explanations, but one thing they all have in common is that none of them bother to fully define the problem that the content of the Book presents. Ann Taves, for instance, reduces the problem of the Book of Mormon to its bulk and perhaps some matters of style. The witnesses? "Somehow...." An explanation that does not fully define the problem the book represents therefore does not fully explain the book. The witnesses do not prove the Book of Mormon, but they are part of the problem that the Book of Mormon defines. They contribute to what Alma describes as "cause to believe," that falls short of perfect knowledge. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA

So far, no one has addressed the Book of Mormon text and context. We are disagreeing with a culturally conditioned reading of the Book of Mormon. Not disagreeing with the Book of Mormon. Abraham 1:2 refers to him seeking to be "a greater follower of righteousness and to possess greater knowledge..." That is depicted as a good thing, a good example. Rather than to be "a strict and unbending follower of orthodoxy and traditional opinion which is unquestionable." FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA

Like I keep quoting: Nothing in the formal statement of "the authority of my servants" means that they will never make mistakes or that other people will not make that known. But I also notice that none of the many scholars who have been developing this case for the last sixty years or so (starting with Nibley's publications in the church magazine, Since Cumorah, which began this line of thought) have used their criticism as grounds to set themselves up as rival formal church offices or priesthood authority, or to argue that the formal leaders and the restoration as such has no divine authority. Indeed, we defend that authority. That makes a difference. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA

Let us rather read carefully, in context and in depth, with some self-reflection on the cultural assumptions of the purported authors of the Book of Mormon, and the cultural assumptions of the 19th century readers of the Book of Mormon and of ourselves. That is what Jesus refers to as checking one's own eye for beams before rushing to judgment. "Then shalt thou see clearly." Not, "Don't waste time on being self-critical. There are offensive beliefs out there amongst the LDS just starving for want of immediate and satisfying indignation!" Skins can be garments. In Alma 3:5, Lamanites explicitly wear skins as garments. Does Alma 3:6 take its context from that, or not? Throughout the Book of Mormon the same prophets who talk about the Lamanites and covenant blessings and curses associate clean and filthy garments with blessings and curses respectfully, speaking to the same audiences with the same rhetorical intent. Indeed, there are many more passages with that theme than those five others that Sproat examines that have been taken as referring to skin color. The same Alma chapter 3 that talks about God marking the Lamanites also says that the Amlicites marking themselves to separate themselves from the Nephites is the same as if God had marked them. Let's consider the evidence. Why, exactly, is so unthinkable in the notion of the Book of Mormon curse being manifest through personal lifestyle choices, including garments as marking them? In Fiddler on the Roof, Tevye talks about his hat and prayer shawl, and other things and says, "Because of our traditions, each of us knows who he is, and who God expects him to be." In many societies, the choice of garments says a great deal. There are no stories in the Book of Mormon where the outcome of any story depends on someone's skin color. It was not seen as a sudden miracle by the Lamanites, and one would think they might notice and comment if that was the case. And there are constant comings and goings back and forth, people changing political allegiance and "becoming" Lamanite, or Nephite, or for a time, no manner of "ites". And when the divisions come, it is "costly apparel" as one of the defining disgnostic symbols what leads to division and apostasy. So personally, I do not believe that the Lamanite curse in the Book of Mormon has anything to do with skin color. I have given my reasons, some of them at least, pointing to specific verses and specific scholars and their arguments and evidence. I do not believe the LDS are bound to defend race based reading. I believe that the misreading was conditioned more by the surrounding culture than the demands of the text. I notice that the formal statement of "mine authority, and the authority of my servants" in D&C 1 does not formally declares that LDS traditions and authorities on the topic are unquestionable. Rather, FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA

Notice that J.K. Williams has left out some important words from Alma 3:5, leading into Alma 3:6. In his important essay, "Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon," Ethan Sproat had noticed this about various commenters on Alma 3:5-6 on the Lamanite curse. J. K. has thus far adopted the second approach, "remaining silent about the first." It is not a particularly imposing approach to make to Sproat's scholarship. Knee-jerk mockery is easy. Scholarship is hard. Sproat wrote: T. J. Uronia recently looked at the Book of Mormon in relation to Assyrian writing of the time. The abstract of his recent BYU Studies essay has this: T. J. Uriona, “Life and Death, Blessing and Cursing” New Context for “Skin of Blackness” in the Book of Mormon”, BYU Studies Quarterly, 63/3 (2023). https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/life-and-death-blessing-and-cursing/ Hugh Nibley has also addressed the context for "skin of blackness" a phrase unique to a single verse and a single author in the Book of Mormon, Nephi the only Book of Mormon author raised in the Ancient Near East, in 2 Nephi 5:1. Hugh Nibley, Teachings of the Book of Mormon, Lecture 18, https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/lecture-18-2-nephi-3%E2%80%938-lehi%E2%80%99s-family-blessings-and-conflict . It is also important to notice that the same Book of Mormon authors who talk about the curse frequently and throughout the entire book use language associating white/pure/clean garments as metaphors of blessings and repentance, and stained/filthy/bloody garments as symbolic of disobedience and covenant curses in ways that directly parallel the use, context, audience and rhetorical intent of verses so often associated with racial readings. For example, the same Nephi who wrote both “skin of blackness” and “all are alike unto God” also wrote: “…And these twelve ministers whom thou beholdest shall judge thy seed. And, behold, they are righteous forever; for because of their faith in the Lamb of God their garments are made white in his blood.” And the angel said unto me, “Look!” And I looked, and beheld three generations pass away in righteousness; and their garments were white even like unto the Lamb of God. And the angel said unto me, “These are made white in the blood of the Lamb, because of their faith in him.” (Nephi 12:10-11) See also So notion that skins can be garments and garments can represent both blessing and curses relative to covenants is present throughout the Book of Mormon. I do not find shallow mockery and incredulity shows evidence of having weighed and considered that. With respect to the plain meaning of the text, and what is "obvious," the whole point of the parable of the Sower is that the same words, planted in different soils, nurtured in different ways, can radically changed the harvest. Of that parable, Jesus says "Know ye not this parable? How then will ye know all parables?" Knowing that soil and nurture of words can change their meaning is a crucial teaching of Jesus. For example, regarding the plain meaning of "other sheep" Jesus explained in 3 Nephi that he had disciples who supposed they understood, and did not ask, and therefore, were not taught. If we think we know what we are looking at, we may not see what is actually there. What sort of pre-existing suppositions existed in Joseph Smith's 19th century context? From Americanist Approaches to the Book of Mormon: I find it easy to recognize that early readers of the Book of Mormon, and many present readers, saw only what they expect to see, rather than what is really there. But seeing what you expect to see, rather than what is there, leads to problems. Reading the text as “a series of drearily familiar racist tropes” does not quite fit. Indeed, Jeremy Talmage reports that: "The racial worldview of the Book of Mormon is a historical anomaly in that it envisioned Native Americans as either black or white when nearly everyone else identified Indians as red. As it turns out, this radically departed from the personal views of Joseph Smith and his nineteenth-century culture. The description of Native Americans as red, which one should expect to find in the Book of Mormon, simply is not there." Jeremy Talmadge, “Black, White, and Red All Over: Skin Color in the Book of Mormon”, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1633&context=jbms Karl R. Popper, The Myth of the Framework: In Defence of Science and Rationality (New York: Routledge, 1994), 84–85, https://books.google.com/books? FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA

The first part of my review has appeared. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/an-important-addition-to-the-library/ FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA

The From the Desk website has an interview with Grant Hardy on The Annotated Book of Mormon. https://www.fromthedesk.org/annotated-book-of-mormon-grant-hardy/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=annotated-book-of-mormon-grant-hardy Quite interesting. Incidentally, I have a two part review coming in Interpreter. I just got to look over the prepublication proof of Part 1. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA

It is a very useful book. However, it should not be the only book. It provides a significant achievement, and also due to his stated intent to contextualize the Book of Mormon in light of “the generally agreed upon findings of modern biblical scholars and historians” the book inevitably invites further discussion on points in which the Book of Mormon challenges those findings. I have a forthcoming Interpreter review that intends to show where Hardy succeeds in his intentions and to point to ways in which Latter-day Saint readers can faithfully enter further discussions. One could imagine a discussion of the New Testament based on the position that "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?" So I like and admire the book, but I also have a lot to say about his approaches to race and the curse, geography, Isaiah, 3 Nephi and the Sermon at the Temple, anachronism, Margaret Barker, and such. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA

My response to you had to do with your statement that "The articulate writer and minister, Rev. Ethan Smith, wrote a fictional "A View of the Hebrews," calling it fiction." Rather than enter into a dialogue, or admitting that you mischaracterized Smith's book, you have applied rhetorical labeling such as "apologist...egregious..." and then change the subject and offer up a standard set of skeptical memes in a scattershot fashion. I read all of Hugh Nibley's responses when the Metropolitan Museum presented surviving fragments to the church in November 1967. (Most of the papyrus that Joseph Smith possessed was destroyed in the Chicago fire, which, is, a significant fact when considering the controversy.) Nibley was certainly interested in defending Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham, but he does not fret in print about trying to find Abraham in the existing papyrus, but rather to explain what they are. It was Nibley who identified the Hor Book of Breathings for what it was. His book An Egyptian Endowment is a translation and commentary on a longer version of a book of Breathings. As to the source of the Book of Abraham, there are several competing theories, notably the catalyst theory and the "direct revelation" theory reported by his contemporary scribes, but not mentioned by you, who prefer to argue for an "open-and-shut" case. You may not have realized that Tim Barker recently pointed out at FAIR that the annotations to the published facsimiles provide a crucial clue that everyone had overlooked. While critics of the Book of Abraham eagerly pointed out in a Dialogue article that the hypocephalus was incomplete. For publication with a complete figure, Joseph Smith had Rueben Hedlock take characters from the other papyrus that Joseph Smith had to fill out the missing portions. What is interesting is that those characters all come from the Hor Book of Breathings, and that Joseph Smith's published annotations for Facsimile all basically declare that Joseph Smith has not translated those characters. For all the fuss skeptics have made trying to claim that Joseph Smith mistakenly or fraudulently claimed to translate the Book of Abraham from the Hor Book of Breathings, the published book of Abraham facsimile 2 contains first hand contemporary comments from Joseph Smith that he has emphatically not translated characters from that that specific papyrus. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/2020-fairmormon-conference/the-answer-under-our-heads With respect to the Kinderhook hoax, Don Bradley presented on that, as Calm has already pointed out. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Don-Bradley-Kinderhook-President-Joseph-Has-Translated-a-Portion-1.pdf Joseph did not claim revelation, but rather spoke as a scholar, using the tools at hand. And it is evident that in contrast to the Egyptian papyrus, and the plates, Joseph Smith made no attempt to acquire them, but rather took a look, noticed that one character resembled one discussed in the Kirtland papers, and then left them alone. Regarding the Kirtland Papers, it is also important to account for Will Schryver's observations: And later: And crucially: From Will Schryver's The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers ~Address Delivered at the 2010 Conference of the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research. One additional crucial point regarding arguments from authority, and claims concerning what has or has not been proven. Douglas Hofstadter has observed that "proofs are demonstrations within fixed systems of propositions." He then says "Godel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiomatic system is involved." (Godel, Escher and Bach, 18-19). In attempting to shore up the claim that the New York "hill of considerable size" is the same as the Ramah/Cumorah in the Book of Mormon, you have cited several LDS general authorities such as B. H. Roberts. But you have not addressed the specific text-based arguments that convinced careful Book of Mormon scholars to look elsewhere. (Such as Sperry, "Were There Two Cumorahs? and In Search of Cumorah by David Palmer). Regarding the rhetorically useful assumption that LDS authorities would certainly know, you have not seen fit to mention the formal statement of "mine authority and the authority of my servants" spelled out in Doctrine and Covenants section 1:6 and then 1:24-28. B. H. Roberts was a formidable intellect of his time, but I have read the study decades ago, and to me it is like dropping down a hole a century deep and one scholar wide. A lot has been learned since then. I've read many things that Roberts did not, and that I rather think he would welcome them, things like Sorenson's Mormon's Codex, and Gardner's "The Book of Mormon as History" rather than pompously declaring, "hitherto thou shalt come, and no further," something Joseph Smith explicitly warned against. The advantage of claiming that "Surely a prophet (or general authority) would know!" for believers means that no further inquiry is necessary, that all the thinking has been done. And for skeptics like yourself, if makes the appearance of imperfection, and only that, decisive. Neither assumption is justified in light of the crucial passages in D&C 1, which means that your arguments based on the appearance of authority, rather than on the substantial relevant evidence, are rather flimsy, built on sand, and not rock. It was a useful exercise for me to go through Alma and notice every place where Alma qualified the source of his beliefs. Sometimes it was revelation, sometimes personal study, sometimes tradition, and sometimes his own opinion. Asking whether there is evidence that Joseph Smith's inspiration was Real is a very different thing than asking whether it fits the opinions of one's favorite authority or conforms to one's ideal preferences. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA

I, like many others have read Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews, which was not a deliberate fiction but presenting a common-place theory of the time, the notion that the indigenous populations of America were descended from the Lost 10 tribes, which, of course, does not accord with the account in the Book of Mormon, which describes three different migrations (Jaredite, Lehite, and Mulekite), and leaves open the possibility of others. In his 1997 review of the BYU Religious Center reprint of View of the Hebrews, Andrew Hedges observes: See Andrew Hedges, "Review of View of the Hebrews (2nd ed., 1996), by Ethan Smith" in Review of Book on the Book of Mormon 9/1. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1325&context=msr Another important response to the common claims about View of the Hebrews, which none of Joseph Smith's contemporaries made, and of the later B.H. Robert "Study" is John W. Welch's "Answering B.H. Roberts' Questions and 'An Unparallel'". https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/welch/2019-01-04/john_w._welch_finding_answers_and_an_unparallel_1985.pdf Regarding Coe and the Book of Mormon, I have also read his periodic comments, from the 1973 Dialogue essay, which is less a close reading of the Book of Mormon, and more a criticism of 1950s LDS apologetics, his later PBS interview, and the Dehlin interview. He did read Brodie in the 1940s and apparently read the Book of Mormon once. But he has not kept up with Book of Mormon scholarship and his grasp of the Book of Mormon is superficial at best. For instance, I heard John Dehlin and Coe discussing how the lack of any evidence for brass helmets and iron arrowheads is devastating evidence against the Book of Mormon, both blissfully ignorant of the easily discoverable fact that the Book of Mormon never mentions either one. What I find most interesting about Coe these days is comes from Bruce and Brian Dale's 2019 approach in Interpreter. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/joseph-smith-the-worlds-greatest-guesser/ This essay generated a lot of discussion, the interesting comment being this one: I personally heard John Clark's presentation at the 2005 "Joseph Smith Conference at the Library of Congress, on "Archeological Trends and the Book of Mormon" where he observed that the overall tendency regarding complaints about the Book of Mormon and archeological knowledge at any give time was towards resolution. https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/archaeological-trends-and-the-book-of-mormon-origins/ So for John Clark to note that horse may be an unsolved issue for the Book of Mormon should not be mistaken for his view that the overall trend is towards confirmation. And as problems, horses are only mentioned on a few occasions, never in any of the 100 wars, and wheels are not mentioned, but only surmised relative to chariots, where the Hebrew for chariot means "riding thing" not necessarily wheeled. And Mesomericans did in fact, know the principle well enough to make wheeled toys. I also notice that Clark's prediction that the trend of resolution would continue in the future has been validated by the recent LiDar studies, which Coe, could not refer to in Dialogue article in 1973, or any of his books, and which revolutionized the Mesomerican picture overnight. Coe's view of Joseph Smith as imaginative author deconstructs itself. I am thinking in particular of Larry Poulson's corrolations. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf And it happens that Alexander's "The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine" has not dated well. Compare the "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths" https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/development-mormon-understanding-god-early-mormon-modalism-and-other-myths Also the personal story that Don Bradley tells of his own reconversion is directly relevant to Alexander's claims. For instance here. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2012/piercing-the-veil-temple-worship-in-the-lost-116-pages FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA

It is important to remember that the center of Nephite people changes from time to time. This is the graphic Larry Poulson used in his essential 2008 FAIR Presentation on the topic, with the center of the Land on the Zarahemla candidate on the Grijalva/Sidon. It's worth comparing that image to John Clark's discussion as well. at https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf Brant Gardner presented on the topic as well, and incorporated the concept in detail in his books. For instance, see his 2012 presentation: From the East to the West: The Problem of Directions in the Book of Mormon - FAIR (fairlatterdaysaints.org) Gardner goes into the implications of not only the Mesoamerican concepts, but the shifting center of Nephite culture. He includes versions with the center at Nephi and elsewhere. Paradigm choice always involves deciding "Which problems are more significant to have solved?" If you want to use animals and modern compass directions your key issues to push Malaysia and discredit Mesoamerica, that is entirely up to you. If you don't think Joseph Smith's report of Moroni's comments about "the former inhabitants if this continent" amounts to problem at all, certainly not worth mentioning to Chat GPT, that too is entirely up to you. But you will be more persuasive if you fairly represent the opposition, particularly when the materials are well known and freely available to all. I also notice that the only reference to elephants in the Jaredite account (Ether 9:19) is in the 4th generation from arrival (Ether 1:30), which means to me that pushing them to 600 BC for your Chat GPT inquiry is highly questionable. And there is the complication that son and descendent in Hebrew can be the same word, which complicates how to read geneologies. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA