Book of Mormon DNA Apologetics

[Confidential Informant]

Why are M&S suggesting that being a Lamanite and hence a member of the house of Israel actually has nothing to do with a person's ancestry, religion, culture or ethnicity? Because at Stage Four, if you want to continue to maintain that all Amerindians are Lamanites and hence "of the house of Israel," you have to jettison ancestry as a necessary element of that status.

This is, of course, untrue.

It appears the LDS were in Stage IV long before Addictio cares to admit:

Yea, and this was their faith—that my gospel, which I gave unto them that they might preach in their days, might come unto their brethren the Lamanites, and also all that had become Lamanites because of their dissensions.-- D&C 10:48

The doctrine and covenant explicitly divorced the disignation Lamanite from any notions of ancestry as early as 1828...two full years before the books actual publication.

C.I.

[Brant Gardner]

Cinepro:

One way to do this would be to make it lose its focus to such a degree that it stops being relevant. 175 years ago, the Book of Mormon was extremely relevant. It answered questions about where the American Indians came from.

That is true. And in modern society it defines a particular culture inside a larger one. That is certainly a change. The problem is whether that loses anything essential in the Book of Mormon. I suspect that there were many who thought it interesting that the Book of Mormon explained the American Indians. However, I can't see any evidence that this was the meaning of the text for the early adopters. Where is the religion from Josiah Priest or Ethan Smith's books?

There were answers available, and they didn't cause people to change their lives and often uproot themselves into a completely different community.

The meaning they saw was that it provided a witness to a modern prophet, not to old Indians. There is no reason to suppose that it has lost that capacity.

Since then, I think the Book of Mormon has lost some of its meaning and focus. We don't need it to explain much anymore. It doesn't tell us where the American Indians, Mayans, or other peoples came from. It doesn't tell us what they believed.

I can promise you from my experience boring small groups of people who ask me about my anthropology hobby, there really isn't a lot of interest in knowing about the Maya or where the American peoples came from. I can tell you that there have been people interested in the restored gospel - and the book fits into that picture the same way it always has.

You are correct, however, that having alternative answers allows people to disbelieve. That was the war that went on in the late 1800's between religion and Darwinism, when a new and better paradigm explained where people came from. That caused a lot of disbelief - but certainly the the abandonement of the Bible for those who still find it relevant to their spiritual lives. They understand it differently now that they did, but it is still highly relevant.

And now we see some apologists working towards the ultimate meltdown of Book of Mormon claims: in the end, the Book doesn't really apply to anyone particular, but at the same time, it could apply to anyone that we want it to.

Meltdown? I suppose that is a nice active word. Of course I see the process rather completely in reverse. As for the Book of Mormon applying to anyone - it always has. I can't imagine what prompted the large number of early English saints to join the chuch since they didn't have much personal interest in Native Americans. The same could be said for any number of people.

I agree that the shift in the definition of Lamanite makes a difference to Latin America - but I would be hard pressed to see it anywhere else. Where there is obviously a lot of growth in the church in that area, I am not sure that aligning themselves with what critics tend to call the black-hatted bad guys of the Book of Mormon is a great enticement to join the church.

This is all a part of the "Limited Geography" of the Book of Mormon, where Book of Mormon claims will be continually reinterpreted to be smaller and smaller, with the insistence that we just can't expect these people to have left a solid record.

A small region - though larger than Palestine. I suppose you might be right. Nothing from such a small area could influence the world.

[juliann]

It should be pointed out that in order for the anti-Mormons to "win", they don't have to prove the Book of Mormon is false. While that would certainly be one victory, there is another strategy that could work.

Fundamentalists would be interested in proving texts "false".

This second strategy would be to have the Book of Mormon lose its meaning.  Which is to say, that the Book of Mormon could still be "true" to members of the Church, but no one cares, because it doesn't actually mean anything to anybody.

All this demonstrates is that you do not have any acquaintance with canonical criticism. It is the believing community that validates the text. Without that community the text has no particular meaning. You have it backwards.

Because texts are clusters of signs that readers and writers continually interpret, texts are open-ended.  The possibility of fixing, once and for all, the meaning of any sign, of closing interpretative possibility, is a tyrannical desire.  There is always more to say, more to write. And so a deconstructive reading of a text does not hope for the final word as to what a text means, as to what the signs refer to, but rather seeks to open texts that were assumed closed, fixed, settled to interpretative possibilities so that more can be said and written.   

David W. Odell-Scott,

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

We have been over this before and I don't see any indication that you heard anything I said last time. I'll repeat a few things for the readers, presuming that you will respond predictably.

By way of background, the evolution of LDS beliefs about the relationship between the Book's Israelite immigrants and indigenous Amerindians occurred in four discernible stages:

It is always nice to break up intellectual developments into stages. Of course that artificial construct always suggests stronger divisions than actually existed. In this case, you have them dated to publications - which is misleading.

Stage One: BofM immigrants and descendants inhabit an otherwise-empty hemisphere. (Joseph Smith and contemporaries; 1830)

I don't think there is much controversy here. I think that was fairly well the earliest assumption, based on very little critical examination of the text and very little historical sophistication in the people who believed that version.

Stage Two: BofM immigrants and descendants are only a sub-group of hemispheric inhabitants; separate indigenous "others" existed elsewhere in the hemisphere during BofM times. (Roberts and Nibley never moved past this stage.)

This is an interesting way to put it. I think that this was a pretty logical outgrowth of the impetus for new information and the ties to tradition. Such mediating positions are usually some of the first out of the gate. In this case, however, your reference of Roberts and Nibley make this sound way too recent. This idea was developing around the turn of the century. I don't find the timing particularly surprising. By that time the saints were fairly well established in a homeland and weren't primarily involved in establishing themselves. They had the time to begin to get better educations and those brought questions that were answered by examining the text.

Stage Three: Indigenous "others" become actors in the text, but only on the

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

When the changed biological context dictates that you can no longer meaningfully define a modern-era Lamanite as a member of the house of Israel by direct descent or lineage, you have to come up with another way of understanding or interpreting the term.

I suggest Armand Mauss's chapters on this in his All Abraham's Children. He points out that the shifting definition of Lamanite has been around for a long time and has a very long history that is quite unrelated to your hypothesis. His is quite well documented.

[Addictio]

Hi Brant:

Getting off to a bad start, you said:

We have been over this before and I don't see any indication that you heard anything I said last time.

Sometimes people hear what we say, Brant, but disagree with the significance or import we attach to it. That seems to be the case here. Published articles and books are a useful way of marking the emergence of ideas into the public arena. It goes without saying that there is often a process leading up to publication in which the ideas are being worked out, and discussed with friends and colleagues. In this case, given the initial resistance among some GA's to Sorenson's ideas, the eventual publication date, such as with his Ensign articles, followed by his 1985 book, are themselves significant social and cultural milestones.

In the chronology, I was marking the development of publically-expressed ideas by LDS writers. Yes, this means that I'm ignoring the sometimes lengthy and complicated personal and institutional process of putting ideas in publishable form and getting institutional approval. Yes, and if approval doesn't come, or the ideas don't surface in published form, I'm ignoring them.

On the transition from Stage Three to Four, we also disagree about the significance of the shift and how it is reflected in Sorenson's writings. I call the shift dramatic because of the large number of issues/problems that don't exist at Stage Three, that present themselves only at Stage Four. The consequences of the shift upon the nature of the interpretive and historicity issues presented are serious and even fundamental in character. That you disagree with this is fine; the merits of that issue are reflected in the analysis, not in unfocused disagreements over what is significant or crucial, and what isn't.

I'll end with an illustration taken from later in the discussion I've written. As in the Leavitt article, what matters is that the two Stages have significantly different logical consequences for DNA-related and other issues.

As further noted in the Introduction, another defect in Ostler

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

Rather than discuss theoreticals, then, let's stick to facts. Your stage 3 says:

Stage Three: Indigenous "others" become actors in the text, but only on the

[Addictio]

Brant:

I don't want to spend a lot of time or energy debating Sorenson's thought processes or texts with you. Why? Because ultimately, in terms of the historicity debate, it doesn't matter if you think he was already interpreting the Book at Stage Four in 1985. What matters is whether Nephi was in a Stage Three or Four social/biological context when he composed his small plates account. That's what drives the historicity inquiry and debate, as I think you recognize.

In any event, you have to read your quote from p. 89 in the context of what preceded it. Another quote from a footnote in my broader discussion:

It is significant  that, as he was developing the Stage Three perspective, Sorenson initially avoided the problem of Nephi

[Addictio]

Meanwhile, back at the merits.

For the record, I should point out that Brant's exclusive focus in this thread on the development of these ideas among LDS writers (published or unpublished) should not obscure the fact that he agrees with Sorenson and Roper's "Before DNA" position: that Nephi and his group had already encountered and assimilated a group of indigenous Amerindians by the time Nephi composed/etched the account at II Ne. 5. He has also taken the position in the past that, by the time Nephi died, the Amerindians among the people of Nephi would have outnumbered the Israelites.

As my letter indicates, I think Brant is correct about those two inferences from the text. In my criticisms of Ostler's "abominable intermarriage" account of the Lamanite curse (and his naturalistic "intermarriage" or "mixing" account of darkened skin color among the Lamanites) I was relying in part on the same two inferences about the ancient context.

The merits of my criticisms of Ostler's intermarriage and skin-color arguments are not addressed by Brant's opinions on this thread about how and when Sorenson or others developed and expressed their ideas, published or otherwise. If Brant or anyone else wants to address/engage the merits of those criticisms, they're welcome to do so.

Also, I was hoping there might be comments from Brant or others on the skin-color issue, since I believe he and some others who post here have expressed the view that the Lamanite curse does not actually refer to a difference or change in skin pigmention, but is only a metaphorical expression. If it's reasonable for Ostler to infer that the encountered Amerindians would have been darker-skinned than the immigrant Israelites (as I think it is), then this raises questions about why Nephi, Jacob and Alma/Mormon would have used darker skin color even as a useful metaphor or symbol of a person's or a group's social or religious status.

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

Does this mean that "LDS understanding" was really still at Stage Three in 2003? Who cares?

So much for the importance of the stages.

So now the issue isn't your construction of modern history but your reconstruction of Book of Mormon history - which somehow is dependent upon modern interpreters and not the text?

I admit to continued confusion. I can see studying the history of thought on a subject, but I can't see confusing the history of thought about a text with history in the text.

then this raises questions about why Nephi, Jacob and Alma/Mormon would have used darker skin color even as a useful metaphor or symbol of a person's or a group's social or religious status.

Of course it began as a metaphor that had nothing to do with skin color - then your question is irrelevant, isn't it?

[exegete]

Hi CI,

Evidently you've forgotten my correction of your misguided apologetic.

You wrote:

The doctrine and covenant explicitly divorced the disignation Lamanite from any notions of ancestry as early as 1828...two full years before the books actual publication.

I corrected you on this point last year:

I encourage you [Confidential Informant] to read my Sunstone essay, it addresses your slightly flippant remarks (see B. Metcalfe, "Reinventing Lamanite Identity," Sunstone 131 [March 2004]: 20

[Addictio]

Hi Brant:

You said:

So now the issue isn't your construction of modern history but your reconstruction of Book of Mormon history - which somehow is dependent upon modern interpreters and not the text?

Quite amazing, Brant, that you have so little useful to say. As I'll repeat once again, I don't see your criticisms of the chronology as worth debating. I said "who cares" that Peterson might be articulating a Stage Three scenario for the Nephites in the same year that Roper and Sorenson are acknowledging the early, correct entry point for the Amerinds because it simply doesn't matter to me whether we agree or disagree that the Stage Three context was publicly articulated by Sorenson shortly before, at the same time as , or soon after the Stage Four context. Nothing of substance or significance turns on that.

I admit to continued confusion. I can see studying the history of thought on a subject, but I can't see confusing the history of thought about a text with history in the text.

I really can't see it either, Brant, except in your puzzling focus on the chronology while avoiding the substance of the analysis. I know from dozens of past discussions with you that you understand the initial importance of determining (for example) whether Nephi and his people did or didn't encounter the Amerindians before he wrote his small plates account. If he didn't, then Ostler's "abominable intermarriage" interpretation of the curse passage is much more defensible. Do you understand at least that much? No? Still confused about what's going on?

Finally, after quoting part of one sentence on the literal/metaphorical nature of the skin-color passages, you said [bracket word added]:

Of course [if] it began as a metaphor that had nothing to do with skin color - then your question is irrelevant, isn't it?

Yes, Brant. If your position is sound, then your position is sound.

[Confidential Informant]

Frankly, my friend, if you draw this red herring again I may question more than just your good judgment.

Judge away. I simply disagree with your interpretation of the verse. Of course, it appears that you question the judgement of anyone who disagrees with you.

C.I.

[juliann]

Frankly, my friend, if you draw this red herring again I may question more than just your good judgment.

Why do you drop in here to wallpaper the place with this kind of breathtaking arrogance? The article you reference is filled with demands for inerrancy topped by the usual sneering. How does this possibly further your need to pronounce Mormonism as false? Those "apologists" you are curling your lip at are the ones being invited to the conferences that are happening yearly now....what podium have you shared at Yale or Claremont? Do the scholars who do attend rate the label of "apologist" because they dabble in Mormon studies? This kind of juvenile sniggering is beyond belief. You really need to start communicating instead of slapping back if you have any hope of being listened to...I have yet to hear your work mentioned in any conference. My favorite Brentism:

While perhaps affording revisionist Book of Mormon studes a veneer of scientific respectibility, these apologetic efforts to reinvent Laminte identity face some formidable challenges. . .

Since when do "revisionist" studies need a "veneer", Brent? Are you horrified to the tips of your fundamentalistic toes that there should be any kind of change in the past century? Wake up and smell the coffee.

Hi Brant,

As I've repeatedly encouraged you: expend more energy on listening to your interlocutors. You do yourself a disservice when you incessantly misrepresent or obstinately misunderstand those with whom you disagree.

Brant, you are not allowed to stray past the limits of interpretation set by Brent. Ever. There is no other valid point of view. Anywhere.

[exegete]

Hi Julie,

I must confess that no matter how ill-informed you are on Mormon studies, your melodramatic caricatures of me never fail to amuse.

I couldn't say who has or hasn't referred to my publications at various academic conferences, nor do I care. But for that matter I couldn't say who has or hasn't referred to Dan Peterson, Bill Hamblin, John Tvedtnes, Brian Hauglid, Gregory Taggart, John Gee, Ryan Parr, Lou Midgley, Larry Morris, David Whitchurch, Richard Holzapfel, Kevin Christensen, Brant Gardner, Stephen Ricks, Terry Szink, Ben Spackman, Don Sorenson, Hollis Johnson, Kevin Barney, George Mitton, Alan Goff, Matt Roper, Craig Foster, or Andrew Hedges

[juliann]

I must confess that no matter how ill-informed you are on Mormon studies, your melodramatic caricatures of me never fail to amuse.

Well, I feel no need to confess that no matter how ill-informed you are in biblical scholarship, your arrogant caricatures of just about everybody do not amuse.

I couldn't say who has or hasn't referred to my publications at various academic conferences, nor do I care.

Then it is quite odd you feel compelled to defend yourself if you don't care. And it would be a very adequate defense...if it was relevant.

Those "apologists" you are curling your lip at are the ones being invited to the conferences that are happening yearly now....what podium have you shared at Yale or Claremont?.

[juliann]

http://farms.byu.edu/pdf.php?filename=MTAy...=&type=cmV2aWV3

No, Dan, That

[exegete]

Hi Julie,

There is very little in mundane life that "bugs the hell out of [me]." Things that do "bug[] the hell out of [me]" generally fall under categories like global injustice, totalitarian repression, predatory crime, governmental malfeasance, and so. On rare occasions, a piece of popcorn shell wedged between my teeth can "bug[] the hell out of [me]"

[juliann]

You may want to be a tad more selective on your choice of academic poster child for quality historiography. Andrew Hedges' essay in the recent FARMS BoAbr anthology is literally riddled with factual, historical errors. He scarcely epitomizes a level of scholarly conduct that others should emulate.

And the list grows....we have your word for it that every scholar (and MD) who put their money where their mouth was and got that despised degree...and now spend their days teaching and researching are not "quality". We have nothing else...but now we do know that all scholars are incompetent. Ta da! End of argument.

[exegete]

Hi Julie,

Please, drop the silliness. Numerous scholars reflect the discipline of attaining a higher degree. They have my admiration and respect. However, a degree doesn't guarantee that the recipient is an exceptional thinker, researcher, or writer. Andrew Hedges may be utterly brilliant on a variety of historical themes; but on the BoAbr in general and on early-19thC Abrahamic traditions specifically, he is utterly incompetent. Consider the following example.

Andrew uses multiple biblical commentaries from Joseph Smith's biblical milieu, including those by Adam Clarke, Thomas Scott, and Matthew Henry (Hedges relies exclusively on post-BoAbr [i.e., post-1842] printings of these commentaries; my research relies on printings in my personal library: Clarke [New York: 1826], Scott [boston: 1818], and Henry [Philadelphia: 1828]). Hedges claims,

• With the exception of Whiston, all the commentators examined here note Abraham's father's idolatry, apparently using Joshua 24:2 as their source. Watson alone referred to "Arabian and Jewish legends" that speak of Abraham's "early idolatry, his conversion from it, and of his zeal in breaking the images in his father's house" but quickly dismissed these sources as unreliable.

[A. Hedges, "A Wanderer in a Strange Land: Abraham in America, 1800

[juliann]

Your authority on quality historiography, Julie, doesn't have an authoritative leg to stand on.

We know that in your world a scholar must be infallible...just as everyone in the church is required to be flawless. I will continue to ask the obvious...why are you, the ultimate authority on history and everyone who writes it, not being swamped with invitations to lecture at universities and conferences?

[Observer]

Your authority on quality historiography, Julie, doesn't have an authoritative leg to stand on.

We know that in your world a scholar must be infallible...just as everyone in the church is required to be flawless. I will continue to ask the obvious...why are you, the ultimate authority on history and everyone who writes it, being swamped with invitations to lecture at universities and conferences?

[exegete]

Hi Julie,

You obviously don't know when to stop, but I do

[juliann]

Brent, you have always stopped when you couldn't bully people into conceding that you are the ultimate authority in any topic you take on. I have been saying for years that our peculiar little inside group of counter-Mormon apologists would cease to be relevant as scholars entered Mormon studies. We happen to live in a world where it just doesn't matter how smart and capable one is...you still have to have the right paperwork to be heard by those who hold the power. What I truly don't understand is why those of you who think degrees are so easy and unnecessary don't just get one and be done with it.

[Moksha]

Invites to lectures at Universities and Conferences?

Hold your head high and remember the motto: Whenever there is a need for Spackle and Spatula, Mud and Tape, White Paint, White Wash and White-Out, I'll be there.