Simon Southerton's response to ....

[Benjamin McGuire]

Brent Metcalfe writes:

The BoMor says nothing of Jaredite survivors other than Coriantumr, and prophetically precludes them.

Of course not. Nor does it mention that there were Canaanite survivors when the Israelites invaded Palestine and "destroyed" the inhabitants there during the conquest (1 Nephi 17).

Ether 13:21 is not a quote from a Jaredite text. Literary license? More food for thought.

Ben

[Brant Gardner]

Dan Vogel:

Hopefully, these other texts have more positive evidence than the BOM does.

That statement is a good starting point. If we recognize that authentic historical texts behave in certain ways, then we can use that information to judge texts that claim historicity.

I assume that you agree that scholars accept that statements of utter destruction in historical texts are hyperbole and do not reflect the reality as typically reconstructed through archaeology. This is known to be true for biblical archaeology and well as Mesoamerican.

If, for some reason, you don't accept the scholarly consensus on this principle, please let me know and I'll provide some documentatiton.

In such case, making the kinds of speculative allowances and adjustments you call for makes sense. Otherwise you are caught in a vicious circle of assuming historicity to explain away unhistorical claims.

I believe you have the issue quite backwards. You begin analysis assuming that a text was created by humans and obeys the same principles as other texts. When one finds that it does not, the production culture may be determined to be other than what is claimed.

However, if you begin by analyzing a text as though it were an impossible production of humanity, then you see the internal evidence of its humanity as an indication of ahistoricity. That is as reversed a logic as I can find. You are suggesting that precisely at the points when the text behaves like an ancient text, it must be proof that it is modern because it doesn't represent non-textual history.

Strange logic.

We both agree that the BOM makes unhistorical claims, but have different explanations for them. You appeal to the fact that some authentic documents make unhistorical claims, and I appeal to the fact that Joseph Smith had an unrealistic view of ancient American history,

And thus the problem of methodology. The problem is that you are claiming that the unhistorical claims must mean that it is modern even though the type of unhistorical claim it makes is common to historical documents. That makes it extremely weak evidence for your case. It suggests that it can only be evidence for your theory if you accept the theory prior to analyzing the data and fit the data to the theory.

Given the fact that the BOM has not made a direct connection to ancient America,

Obviously, I would dispute that particular assertion. There are many accepted hypotheses in history that are built on evidence that is convincing but not conclusive. The Book of Mormon's connection to Mesoamerica is one of those. I agree there is no smoking-gun-style evidence, but that does not equate to not making a direct connection. The types of connections that are made are the very same kinds of connections that allow prehistorians to reconstruct histories in other disciplines.

contains both literary and historical anachronisms,

An issue that has been debated for a very long time. I know of no anachronism that is not related to vocabulary and therefore attributable to translation issues. I know of several contextual items that are authentic to an ancient time and place but would be anachronous to Joseph Smith's time.

Which anachronisms are more telling? Sounds like an issue for discussion - not premature conclusion.

and increasingly relies on ad hoc and tenuous explanations,

The "ad hoc" phrase seems to be increasingly popular. I find it interesting that there are phrases and explanations that seem to crop up that are used to reject entire arguments with short dismissive phrases.

In this case, I can't imagine what an "ad hoc" argument might be. I am familiar with a very large body of research on the Book of Mormon as well as the supporting logic and data behind them. I can't imagine how those arguments can be termed "ad hoc" with a straight face. It makes for a nice dismissal while ignoring the arguments - but it doesn't seem to fit.

does it seem wise to give it the benefit of the doubt and treat it the same as one would a document that has much more credibility

And so we return to the fundamental problem. Which is the more scientific approach?

A) Let's treat the Book of Mormon as we would any other document and test it using the tools social-scientists would use for any other text

or

Let's make up a set of rules for testing the Book of Mormon that are unique to that text and are predicated on our previous decision about what the text must be.

Obviously, I have a prejudice for the first. I am sure that I haven't stated the second in a way that you would like - but since that is what you are suggesting, perhaps you could help me out and phrase it in such a way that it actually would be acceptable as a secular thesis?

[exegete]

Hi Brant,

Evidently you missed the query that I addressed to you:

• You mention that it's the "official position of the [LDS] church ... that there is ultimately no conflict between science and religion"; I'm wondering where that "official position" is articulated and in what way that "official position" is more "official" than the 1845 Proclamation of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter-day Saints that explicitly affirms that the BoMor discloses the "Israelitish origin" of the American Indians (see B. Metcalfe, "

Reinventing Lamanite Identity," Sunstone 131 [March 2004]: 23).

Also, my BoMor reading on Jaredite survivors does assume at least one thing: that the narrative is sufficiently coherent to grasp its storyline.

Hi Ben,

Good to hear from you, my friend.

The problem with Jaredite survivors doesn't rest solely, or even mostly, on what the text doesn't say, but on what it does say. If the prophesied obliteration of Jaredite society and the soap-opera-esque telling of depopulation from millions to two survivors (Coriantumr and Ether) are nothing more than ahistorical literary flourishes, they are flourishes that are consistent with the portrayal of early BoMor history. As I noted years ago on ZLMB,

• Coriantumr is informed that he will survive the Jaredite obliteration to see a new people inherit that land and that they will bury him (Ether 13:21; see also 11:21). Like prophetic clockwork, Coriantumr is found by the people of Zarahemla with whom he resides for "nine moons" (Omni 1:21). Such a situation is nonsensical in a region swarming with indigenous populations

[Confidential Informant]

Such a situation is nonsensical in a region swarming with indigenous populations

[Brant Gardner]

exegete:

I didn't miss the first question. Since it is similar to the nature of your fundamentalist readings, I consider it part of the same issue.

Also, my BoMor reading on Jaredite survivors does assume at least one thing: that the narrative is sufficiently coherent to grasp its storyline.

As opposed to other historical texts? Surely you are not suggesting that a fundamentalist reading is the only way any text's story line makes sense? I suspect there are hundreds of historians who would take issue with that assumption.

exegete to Ben:

The problem with Jaredite survivors doesn't rest solely, or even mostly, on what the text doesn't say, but on what it does say.

Which doesn't answer the direct example Ben gave. He could give others. I can give others from Mesoamerica. It is a rather accepted fact of historical documents that the mention of "total destruction" is poetic license that doesn't match with the reality of archaeological evidence.

Are you suggesting that we are not required to toss out hundreds of ancient texts because they don't meet your reading criteria?

If the prophesied obliteration of Jaredite society and the soap-opera-esque telling of depopulation from millions to two survivors (Coriantumr and Ether) are nothing more than ahistorical literary flourishes, they are flourishes that are consistent with the portrayal of early BoMor history.

Let's see. The way Jaredite history is told is consistent with the editorial style and historical interpretation that Mormon put on the rest of the text? What are the chances that Moroni would share that world view? Where is the issue with an author being consistent with his own designs?

Such a situation is nonsensical in a region swarming with indigenous populations

[cdowis]

>But I do grasp the fact that Native American DNA can be linked to Asia.

1. Are you saying that there is a 100% correlation? If so, then your statement is factually incorrect.

2. Are you saying that we have samples from 100% of the original amerindian dna? If so, your statement is factually correct.

Indeed, of the modern amerindians, are you aware that these are descendants of the perhaps 10% who survived the European incursion?

You statement can lead to a false conclusion, considering the facts.

[juliann]

Surely you are not suggesting that a fundamentalist reading is the only way any text's story line makes sense? I suspect there are hundreds of historians who would take issue with that assumption.

Have you ever seen a DNAster countermo position that did not demand a fundamentalistic reading? Just curious. These things are always theology debates.... not scientific arguments from what I can see.

[Sinleqeunnini]

Brent Metcalfe writes:

The BoMor says nothing of Jaredite survivors other than Coriantumr, and prophetically precludes them.

Of course not. Nor does it mention that there were Canaanite survivors when the Israelites invaded Palestine and "destroyed" the inhabitants there during the conquest (1 Nephi 17).

Ether 13:21 is not a quote from a Jaredite text. Literary license? More food for thought.

Ben

Just a bit of evidence to support Ben here:

These are some year names from the reign of Shulgi:

Shulgi 21: The year Der was destroyed.

Shulgi 24: The year Karhar was destroyed.

Shulgi 25: The year Simurrum was destroyed.

Shulgi 26: The year Simurrum was destroyed for the second time.

Shulgi 27: The year Har

[Calm]

Probably the same thing as a macho man thumping his chest.

[Hawkmoon]

DNA stands in stark contrast to traditional teachings and beliefs of the LDS Church (some of which continue in current curriculum and BofM Introduction), regardless of your attempts at revisionist history.

RE: Curriculum

In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.."

As someone who has taught from the current "curriculum" over the last ten years as both a Priesthood instructor and a Gospel Doctrine instructor-- I have yet to teach that the American Indians are the direct descendant of, or that Lehi is the principal ancestor of them. Now, I do acknowledge that it quite possible that over the last ten years I may have happened not to teach or participate in these discussions BUT it does seem to indicate that at the very most it is not a very important point that is being made... unless you count instructor opinion as official "curriculum" which would seem to fit in nicely with your views on BRM. Would you care to elaborate more fully on the where/what/when of this instruction?

[Hawkmoon]

  Many (including myself) believe BRM (an apostle and leading LDS theologian and scriptorian at the time) had an active role in drafting the BofM Introduction, first published in 1981.

In other words, you feel that the church has an obligation to officially apologize (or clarify) for a belief or opinon you have? I mean, do you have some evidence that shows that BRM wrote this introduction in 1981? Furthermore, that if he did he wrote it with the definition you have ascribed to him and not from his official capacity? Are you saying that simply by having BRM write the introduction (if he even did so) the church is tacitly supporting his theory? That is a lot of assumptions you seem so easily able to jump to...

[Guest Five to one]

Anything that bears the church's copyright after 1971 has been through Correlation and thus has official approval from the church, not just tacit support. It doesn't matter who wrote it. If it were considered incompatible with church doctrine, Correlation would have struck it.

[cdowis]

>If it were considered incompatible with church doctrine, Correlation would have struck it.

BOM geography is not church doctrine.

DNA characteristics of the Amerindian is not church doctrine.

The Amerindians are descendants of the Lamanites -- that is church church doctrine.

Now the BOM critics have taken upon themselves the task to disprove the last statement, and they have failed, so they content themselves with the first two.

[Guest Five to one]

I said nothing about geography or DNA.

The Amerindians are descendants of the Lamanites -- that is church church doctrine.

Yes, it is. I just find it odd that people want to distance themselves from the statement in the introduction that is and always has been church doctrine.

[Hawkmoon]

Anything that bears the church's copyright after 1971 has been through Correlation and thus has official approval from the church, not just tacit support. It doesn't matter who wrote it. If it were considered incompatible with church doctrine, Correlation would have struck it.

Yes, it is true that the introduction has official approval... though it does not represent official doctrine... however, that is missing the point entirely.

According to Rollo:

BRM wrote the introduction...

Hence, since BRM believes A; the introduction represents A; therfore, the church officially endorses A. This in the end is simply sophistry.

The reality is we do not have a definitive clarification as to what is meant by "principal" from the church, so Rollo has graciously decided to assign a meaning for us. Not suprisingly it fits his word-view perfectly.

[Rollo Tomasi]

As someone who has taught from the current "curriculum" over the last ten years as both a Priesthood instructor and a Gospel Doctrine instructor-- I have yet to teach that the American Indians are the direct descendant of, or that Lehi is the principal ancestor of them.

I was referring specifically to the BofM Introduction and the CES manual for Religion 121 and 122, for these points:

1. BofM Introduction referring to the BofM Lamanites as the "principal ancestors of the American Indians."

2. CES manual referring to "the Lamanites of today" as "descendants of great BofM leaders."

3. CES manual quoting Marion G. Romney in placing the BofM Ramah/Cumorah in western NY state.

[Rollo Tomasi]

In other words, you feel that the church has an obligation to officially apologize (or clarify) for a belief or opinon you have?

Not apologize, but simply to correct and/or clarify where needed.

I mean, do you have some evidence that shows that BRM wrote this introduction in 1981?

Do you honestly believe that BRM had no role in drafting the Introduction? He was a (if not the) leading theologian and scriptorian among the Brethren at that time (1981).

Are you saying that simply by having BRM write the introduction (if he even did so) the church is tacitly supporting his theory?

I'm saying the Church approved the description of BofM Lamanites as the "principal ancestors" of modern-day Native Americans by including the Introduction in every edition of the BofM since 1981. To understand what was meant by the word "principal," as originally drafted and included in the Introduction in 1981, I offered BRM's writings about the blood lineage of modern-day Native Americans. I believe that BRM played a significant role in the drafting of the Introduction, based on his calling and status at the time, which is why I think his writings on American Indian blood lineage are particularly relevant to what the word "principal" was originally intended to mean.

[Rollo Tomasi]

BOM geography is not church doctrine.

Well, except for the BofM Hill Cumorah's location in western NY state.

DNA characteristics of the Amerindian is not church doctrine.

Well, except for the Lamanites being the "principal ancestors" of American Indians.

The Amerindians are descendants of the Lamanites -- that is church church doctrine.

You forgot the word "principal" somewhere in there, didn't you?

[Who Knows]

When you step back and look at this, it seems really rather silly to me.

God goes through all this trouble to have the BOM come forth, translated into hundreds of languages, go to hundreds of countries around the world - it's supposed to be the key 'conversion' tool, etc. etc.

Yet, woops, God forgot to inspire the leaders on the introduction and chapter headings. Are you kidding me? We have a prophet on the earth right? The BOM is the primary conversion tool. The leaders of the church approved the introduction and chapter headings. And God didn't inspire them whatsoever as to what they were putting in the intro and headings?

Sorry, I just find it a little ridiculous.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Hence, since BRM believes A; the introduction represents A; therfore, the church officially endorses A.

...

The reality is we do not have a definitive clarification as to what is meant by "principal" from the church, so Rollo has graciously decided to assign a meaning for us.

No, I have only said that BRM's writings on American Indian blood lineage provide insight into what was meant by the word "principal" when the Introduction was first published in 1981. Since I'm (unfortunately) old enough to remember the prevalent beliefs and teachings among LDS leaders and members in the early 1980's on this issue (and without the benefit of today's DNA evidence on the matter), the word "principal" was taken to mean that the primary ancestors of Native Americans were the BofM Lamanites. BRM's writings on blood lineage are consistent with this. Were we wrong in 1981? It appears so, but that just means we fix the mistake when we get further light and knowledge. Admitting to and fixing a mistake should not be the big deal we are making it out to be, imo.

[Daniel Peterson]

When you step back and look at this, it seems really rather silly to me.

God goes through all this trouble to have the BOM come forth, translated into hundreds of languages, go to hundreds of countries around the world - it's supposed to be the key 'conversion' tool, etc. etc.

Yet, woops, God forgot to inspire the leaders on the introduction and chapter headings.  Are you kidding me?  We have a prophet on the earth right?  The BOM is the primary conversion tool.  The leaders of the church approved the introduction and chapter headings.  And God didn't inspire them whatsoever as to what they were putting in the intro and headings? 

Sorry, I just find it a little ridiculous.

However silly it may seem to you -- I'm not sure whether God cares about your standards of silliness or not -- this seems to be what happened.

In fact, I'll go yet further: Royal Skousen, whose 15+ years of scholarly work on the textual history of the Book of Mormon have already produced several large volumes that will almost certainly stand as the definitive study of the subject, is quite convinced by his textual studies that (1) the original manuscript was dictated under divine inspiration and that (2) all subsequent editions and textual changes have been good faith human efforts with no special claim to inspiration. I find his arguments convincing.

I like C. S. Lewis's comment, in Miracles, about how miracles enter into the everyday world: The water was miraculously transformed into wine at Cana, but, thereafter, the wine was just ordinary wine. It could make somebody drunk, it could spill, it could go bad. The conception of Jesus was miraculous, but, thereafter, Mary's pregnancy proceeded as pregnancies ordinarily do.

So, if, as the evidence suggests, God did not intervene to miraculously ensure inerrancy in subsequent editions of the actual text of the Book of Mormon, why should we assume that he would have intervened to ensure an inerrant 1981 introduction?

[Rollo Tomasi]

So, if, as the evidence suggests, God did not intervene to miraculously ensure inerrancy in subsequent editions of the actual text of the Book of Mormon, why should we assume that he would have intervened to ensure an inerrant 1981 introduction?

On this point, Dan, I agree with you completely. A 'sign of the times,' perhaps?

[Who Knows]

However silly it may seem to you -- I'm not sure whether God cares about your standards of silliness or not -- this seems to be what happened.

In fact, I'll go yet further: Royal Skousen, whose 15+ years of scholarly work on the textual history of the Book of Mormon have already produced several large volumes that will almost certainly stand as the definitive study of the subject, is quite convinced by his textual studies that (1) the original manuscript was dictated under divine inspiration and that (2) all subsequent editions and textual changes have been good faith human efforts with no special claim to inspiration. I find his arguments convincing.

I like C. S. Lewis's comment, in Miracles, about how miracles enter into the everyday world: The water was miraculously transformed into wine at Cana, but, thereafter, the wine was just ordinary wine. It could make somebody drunk, it could spill, it could go bad. The conception of Jesus was miraculous, but, thereafter, Mary's pregnancy proceeded as pregnancies ordinarily do.

So, if, as the evidence suggests, God did not intervene to miraculously ensure inerrancy in subsequent editions of the actual text of the Book of Mormon, why should we assume that he would have intervened to ensure an inerrant 1981 introduction?

I could see your point in the world of mormonism as a whole, but I'm talking about one specific thing - the BOM - the primary conversion tool. Sure, prophets give talks, write books, give blessings, etc. and it doesn't have to all be inspired - they're men, they make mistakes. But the BOM as a singular item - given it's standing as the 'keystone' of the LDS religion - it just seems silly that he wouldn't ensure inerrancy on that one thing - the thing that the LDS church hangs it's hat on.

[juliann]

Yet, woops, God forgot to inspire the leaders on the introduction and chapter headings. Are you kidding me? We have a prophet on the earth right? The BOM is the primary conversion tool. The leaders of the church approved the introduction and chapter headings. And God didn't inspire them whatsoever as to what they were putting in the intro and headings?

Sorry, I just find it a little ridiculous.

Religion is "ridiculous" when measured by nonbelievers. I think hanging around a message board and pounding strangers day after day after day with personal disappointments is about as ridiculous as it gets. Your complaints about the BOM are said every day against the Bible or any other religious text. So what. I want to believe in something "ridiculous". You want to believe in something else that is equally "ridiculous". At what point does a responsible and rational person stop worrying about the other guy who is doing the same thing he is?

[Rollo Tomasi]

But the BOM as a singular item - given it's standing as the 'keystone' of the LDS religion - it just seems silly that he wouldn't ensure inerrancy on that one thing - the thing that the LDS church hangs it's hat on.

Actually, the Introduction (which contains the "principal" word in dispute) is not part of the BofM canon, which is the reason I think this controversy can be easily fixed by a change or clarification. My suggestions:

1. Take out the word "principal" and replace with "among the" or "some of;" or

2. Clarify that word "principal" to mean something like "most important" rather than "primary."