Horses and Chariots -

[beastie]

It suggests to me, of course, that Dan is really less interested in proving Joseph Smith as the author than he is in proving that the text is not ancient. So, he has no real urgency in attacking other theories which promote modern authorship. The enemy of my enemy is my friend so to speak. The challenge in your thinking, Beastie, is that I have yet to see an argument against historicty by Dan, or anyone else, that doesn't deal with issues of modern authorship - with interpretrations of text based on who are possible candidates for authorship. Much of Dan Vogel's argument simply disappears if we start with an assumption that Joseph Smith was not the author. Dan's psychohistory doesn't work with a different author. And from this perspective, I think it is quite reasonable to ask Dan why he doesn't try and defend himself from competing claims, and I think we deserve more than a simple expression of a lack of interest.

I've had a long day and may be misinterpreting your point. I apologize in advance if that is the case.

But as far as having yet to see an argument against historicity that doesn't deal with issues of modern authorship - it depends on how you define that "issue". Certainly when anachronisms within the BoM are discussed, often nineteenth century parallels are offered for comparison. However, usually these arguments aren't particularly dependent upon who the author may be, but rather what time period influence can be seen.

Regarding lack of interest in defending oneself from competing claims, I don't recall seeing you and Brant duke it out over your competing claims regarding your translation theories. BTW, in terms of contemporary evidence, I think you would win, but Brant has to win in terms of explanatory value (ie, dealing with anachronisms). But I'm betting critics would be just as interested in seeing that debate as they would be in witnessing debates between Dan, and, say Unca Dale (where is he, btw?)

[Dan Vogel]

Hi Ben,

Obviously, it matters quite a bit to Dan Vogel who wrote the Book of Mormon - or he wouldn't have devoted so much print to trying to show that it was Joseph Smith. Further, Dan's interpretive approach to the Book of Mormon essentially requires that Joseph Smith was the author. After all, it really doesn't matter if there were similarities between Joseph Smith Sr.'s dream and Lehi's dream if Joseph Smith wasn't the author.

Of course, it matters who wrote the BOM. My primary interest is not in simply dating the BOM, but in understanding and interpreting it

[Greg Smith]

As far as I

[beastie]

Why isn't it possible that Joseph was using an outline or guide created by someone else, adding his own thoughts along the way? He had an excellent memory, after all, and four years to work on it.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan writes:

Of course, it matters who wrote the BOM. My primary interest is not in simply dating the BOM, but in understanding and interpreting it

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

Why isn't it possible that Joseph was using an outline or guide created by someone else, adding his own thoughts along the way? He had an excellent memory, after all, and four years to work on it.

Ok. But, here is the question. How do you separate that which was written by Joseph Smith and that which wasn't? This is a really interesting question for me - and it has interesting applications for Dan Vogel's work.

By the way, this becomes relevant to the issue because Dan Vogel claims that his is interpreting the text - that this is his objective in what he is doing. And I think that it is entirely appropriate to ask about whether or not he is interpreting the text or doing something else entirely. Perhaps at some point in time we have to even ask what he means when he says "text".

Dan Vogel makes the claim that Joseph Smith Sr.'s dream was the foundation for Lehi's vision, and that Joseph disagreed with the dream, and corrects it in the vision which Nephi has. This argument rests on several assumptions. First, the account of the dream provided in Lucy's biography precedes the Book of Mormon text, and even though it was written years after the Book of Mormon was published (and describes a dream that preceded the Book of Mormon substantially), that the account is completely accurate. Second, the argument is that Joseph would have a need to correct his father in such a text. Third, there is no other source which can provide this material - it must be Joseph's or the whole idea is meaningless. So if there are other persons writing this (or portions of this) who provide outlines and such, Vogel's argument becomes much more complicated. For example, did the person who provided the outline or guide include any references to a vision? This isn't quite as simple as it sounds, since the motif of visions as one of the defining characteristics of a prophet is well spelled out in the text - even to the point of quoting (or at least alluding to) Number 12:6 which discusses this aspect of a prophet. The vision doesn't seem to be merely an add-on to the story - which brings up other issues.

Does Lucy's account attempt to make Joseph Smith Sr.'s dream more like the Lehi dream in the Book of Mormon? Are the verbal similarities due to the fact that Lucy wrote a long time after the publication of the Book of Mormon? It seems hard, in this case, to accept a directional movement of verbage from one source to another (as Vogel suggests) in the opposite direction of their being written. Vogel wants us to believe that both the Book of Mormon and Lucy's book rely on the same oral tradition which predates both of them. Is there any evidence of this? No. In fact, given your suggestions, the whole notion might even be the result of someone else's suggesting an outline or a guide to be used for the fictional account that Joseph created.

Perhaps you see the problem? Essentially this position suggests a hypothetical source which was incoroporated into the Book of Mormon (or served as a basis for its structure). But how to separate what belongs to that source and what does not seems more than a little problematic. And if it isn't all Joseph, then we need to ask what is Joseph and what isn't Joseph. Psychohistories all suffer from at least one relevant criticism. When trying to justify an interpretation of the text based on biographical information from outside the text, there is a tendancy to describe everything in the text in terms of the thoughts of its alleged author. Here, the similarities of Lehi's dream to the Lucy account are explained in terms of the dream in the Book of Mormon being the dream of Joseph's Father. The differences between the Book of Mormon vision of Nephi and the dream that Joseph's father allegedly had are described as being due to disagreements that Joseph had with his father. The text then serves both as a witness to what Joseph thought, and to what Joseph didn't think. By using both similarites and differences as evidence of parallels, any evidence can be used - and there is no real qualifying criteria. Essentially, Vogel is allowed to paint whatever picture he wants - indiscriminately using as evidence his reading of the text - and there is no way to argue against this. After all, based on the fictional characters actions and comments in this fictional account, once we decide when that fictional character is Joseph himself - and jsut as importantly, when that fictional character is not Joseph - Dan can reconstruct what Joseph himself felt and thought.

One of the reasons this is called a psychohistory is because of the way it views the author. Kevin VanHoozer wrote in his book Is There a Meaning in This Text (emphasis added):

It was Freud who discovered the uncharted continent, deep and dark, of the unconscious. Freud exposed the rot in the Cartesian foundation, namely, the irrational substructures of human consciousness in the desires of the body. In his The Interpretation of Dreams, Freud argues that dreams mean something different from what they seem to say. Dreams speak the distorted language of repressed desires.87 We may think we know why we made such and such a decision, for instance, but our conscious motive may not be the real motive. After Freud, consciousness is no longer the royal route to self-knowledge, but a problem for interpretation. If what we consciously say masks unconscious desires, then we must probe behind what we say to arrive at what we really mean.

So, essentially, Vogel is going beyond the text to try and figure out what Joseph really meant, when the fictional characters in his book said and did what they did. Vanhoozer later continues:

Authors are, of course, no exception. What appears to be rational discourse may rather be a function of suppressed ideology, say, of repressed homosexuality. According to some critics, the apostle Paul may provide an example of both tendencies. The letter to the Romans has been psychoanalyzed, and the Pastoral Letters have been read as quasi-political documents that support a particular form of church government. The general point is that one can no longer ignore

[exegete]

Hi Greg,

(Finally! A few minutes to comment.)

I hate to rain on your rhetorical parade (though your apologetic rodomontade did add a little sunshine to my day), but I encourage you to consider other's arguments with greater care than what you've exhibited thus far on the FAIR boards. Perhaps a few facts can illuminate this discussion.

You wrote:

Since you're listed as the editor, I'm sure you've read it. (Though you seem to have a habit of editing material on the Book of Mormon without the requisite professional or scholarly background to evaluate the claims of those you're editing--DNA also springs to mind.) Thus, overlooking something on your part would be understandable, if somewhat embarassing [sic].

No more "embarassing" (sic) than, say, your inability to correctly spell the word embarrassing.

The fact is, Tom's essay for American Apocrypha was reviewed by multiple specialists, including sociologist Dr. Armand Mauss and molecular biologist Dr. Simon Southerton.

Deanne's essay for New Approaches to the Book of Mormon was reviewed by multiple specialists also, including anthropologist Dr. Glenna Nielson, archaeologist Dr. John Carlson, and, yes, even her hubby, internationally renowned Mesoamerican archaeologist Dr. Ray Matheny, who was then professor of anthropology (now retired) at Brigham Young University.

(So eliciting a relative's critique is "poor ethical form"? Hmmm ... No matter how qualified that relative may be? Did you divine this "rule" through your vast experience editing scholarly anthologies? Now if only you had identified this insidious breach of "ethical form" before you learned Ray's qualifications.)

Of related interest, you may want to attentively listen to the following audio file (which will start playing once it's fully downloaded):

• "Book of Mormon Archaeology: What Does the Evidence Mean?" panel discussion with Ray T. Matheny, Bruce Warren, and John Carlson, moderated by John Ashton at the 1984 Sunstone Symposium.
  
  

Let's take a look at your idea of solid critique. You wrote:

Matheny claims olives act as a claim not supported by arcaheology [sic]:

"Later specific plants, including...the olive tree, are mentioned...But thus far no Old World plants have been identified [via Mesoamerican archaelogy [sic]] by the presence of their pollens or other remains. [p. 300, 302]"

Yet, there is no evidence of this whatever--only Jacob 5's allegory from a putative Old World prophet, (which he seems potentially at pains to explain to a New World audience!)

She again ignores what Sorenson wrote about this; on page 186 he quotes a source which describes the avacado [sic] as "playing the role of the olive in the Old World."

So in an evaluation of Sorenson's model, he gets criticized for what neither he or the Book of Mormon say. Where were the editor(s) or peer reviewers on this one?

So which is it, Greg?

[Greg Smith]

Exegete quoth:

I hate to rain on your rhetorical parade (though your apologetic rodomontade did add a little sunshine to my day),

Always delighted to help out my betters.

No more "embarassing" (sic) than, say, your inability to correctly spell the word embarrassing.

If you consider a typo on a message board equally grave as a failure to address the arguments which I have illustrated, I guess that's your privilege.

It speaks volumes about the

[Zakuska]

If I might... has not Barley been found in New Mexico?

[Dan Vogel]

Ben,

You have this odd knack of showing up in discussions apparently with the sole purpose of changing the subject and attacking the critic with long, tedious, and irrelevant analysis. You haven

[SlackTime]

Ben,

You have this odd knack of showing up in discussions apparently with the sole purpose of changing the subject and attacking the critic with long, tedious, and irrelevant analysis. You haven

[William the Conqueror]

Ben,

You have this odd knack of showing up in discussions apparently with the sole purpose of changing the subject and attacking the critic with long, tedious, and irrelevant analysis. You haven

[Dan Vogel]

Greg Smith,

The same witnesses also agree that Joseph wasn't up to creating the Book of Mormon on his own steam.

They were only witnesses as to the method they observed. It was only their (subjective) opinion that he didn

[exegete]

Hi Greg,

I think our exchange has about run its course.

You wrote:

Yet again, my point of how the critics all too often read neither Sorenson (or me it would seem) OR the Book of Mormon closely enough would seem to be borne out.

Please show where I've misrepresented John Sorenson or the BoMor. (Indeed, you affirm that you agree with my interpretation of John.) This goes to the crux of our dialogue, Greg

[Greg Smith]

They were only witnesses as to the method they observed. It was only their (subjective) opinion that he didn

[beastie]

Hi, Ben,

I feel guilty that you spent so much time replying to my comment, but maybe others are more interested in this aspect than I am and will follow up with you. For whatever reasons (probably just the oddity of my own personality) I am almost solely interested in how the BoM fits an ancient mesoamerican context. I'm content to let others, more interested in the possible modern authorship issue, work out those issues. Perhaps one day I'll get tired of the Maya and become more interested in the nineteenth century issues. Right now, in my view, these issues are almost impossibly murky and subjective... reverting back to my earlier example with Greg regarding "native intelligence" and "capacity to learn". People start parsing things like JS' intelligence, and I just lose interest. Whatever else one may think of JS, he clearly was an intelligent, curious, imaginative human being, and I'm content to leave it at that. Yes, I obviously believe that the BoM was authored by someone in the nineteenth century, in JS' culture, and I'm satisfied with leaving it at that.

On the other hand, the attempts to find points of connection between two cultures that, on the face of it, seem so tremendously dissimilar as the one portrayed in the BoM and ancient Mesoamerica do interest me. It seems to me that, in the journey to do so, we realize that human beings tend to repeat certain themes across culture, across time.

[beastie]

I'm pretty sure that someone asked about barley in the New World, although I can no longer find the specific post.

Matheny states:

It is true that in 1982 a native American species of barley was found in an archaeological context dating to about CE 900 in Arizona.  It is not an Old World import, however, and up to this point no evidence of the native American species has been found in Mesoamerica.

There are really two issues regarding the plants: were the claimed plants in the New World, and are any related to the same Old World plants?

IIRC, Brant's argument on this issue is that the plants could have thrived for a few years and then failed thereafter.

[William the Conqueror]

I'm pretty sure that someone asked about barley in the New World, although I can no longer find the specific post.

Zakuska:

If I might... has not Barley been found in New Mexico?

WTC:

I'm sure a lot of barley can be found in New Mexico. It grows with great profundity.

[William the Conqueror]

All of the work of McCue's essay stands on one point, which has as much stability as an ice cube.  He acts as if everything there is to know about relevant areas, cultures, etc. is known to archeologists, anthropologists, etc.  That ice cube is melting.  More and more information is coming to light and applying heat.  When the ice cube finally melts to a puddle his little pyramid of logic will fall.

It seems to me his ice cube replica is made of iron.

[Greg Smith]

Quoth Brent:

I think our exchange has about run its course.

Well, that would be up to you. Whenever you interact with me, you usually open with something like you can't be bothered to deal with my nonsense (which you have reportedly seen from others before) or how absurd my position is.

As I've said before, if this is the case, then you should probably quit posting things to which others will respond. This is a "discussion board" after all. It seems quite perverse to get huffy when people post material about the discussion.

Besides, you joined into what I was saying here, not the other way around.

Please show where I've misrepresented John Sorenson or the BoMor. (Indeed, you affirm that you agree with my interpretation of John.)

You misrepresented me. Please don't make me go through it again. You claimed I was arguing that the Book of Mormon claimed only Old World olives AND that olives represented "avocados."

The other "critics" and mispresentation was in reference to the "Shoe Fits," where (as I repeat AGAIN) olive trees are mentioned as something which would be expected in the New World, which is false: misrepresenting both the Book of Mormon and Sorenson

[beastie]

By looking up "plant" or "crop" in the index, she would also discover a vast literature that would directly contradict her statement about "no Old World plants." A substantial number of Old World pre-Columbian crops have been identified in America.

This statement should be clarified. There were no pre-Columbian plants in the New World that can be shown to be transplanted from the Old World.

Of course some plants grow in many places around the world. These plants can be genetically analyzed to identify a common origin.

There is NO evidence of any pre-columbian contact wtih the New World. There's plenty of speculation, and theories, but no evidence, as in an artifact or plant that can be shown to have an Old World origin.

My impression of Sorenson is that he uses lack of precision to convey impressions that are not quite accurate. IMO, this is exactly what he did with the linguistic evidence for "metal". Of course they had words for metal. They were using native outcrops and fashioning things out of them. But did they have words for smelting, for advanced metallurgy? That is an entirely different question.

[Greg Smith]

This statement should be clarified.  There were no pre-Columbian plants in the New World that can be shown to be transplanted from the Old World. 

And

There is NO evidence of any pre-columbian contact wtih the New World.  There's plenty of speculation, and theories, but no evidence, as in an artifact or plant that can be shown to have an Old World origin.

Not true at present, anyway.

Of course some plants grow in many places around the world.  These plants can be genetically analyzed to identify a common origin.

You can do this. You can also do it with parasites.

Again, read the latest JBMS (2005) article by Sorenson referenced earlier. Things like the hookworm data (hmmm, hookworms!) are pretty compelling, and not just to those 'ignert Marmons' if the quotes are to be believed ...

Greg

[beastie]

I can't get the online version to show the footnotes and references, unfortunately, because sometimes those are revealing. (such as "Barry Fell" as a source)

At any rate, I'm not sure how much the hookworm, as interesting as it is, helps your argument regarding the BoM.

http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=...nrm=iso&tlng=en

After the evidence of hookworm infection in precolumbian times dated from 900 BC in Peru (Allison et al., 1974) and from 3490

[Greg Smith]

At any rate, I'm not sure how much the hookworm, as interesting as it is, helps your argument regarding the BoM.

The claim was there was NO, nada, zilch evidence of Pre-Columbian contact. The hookworms would suggest that SOMEONE got there via a method other than the land bridge in Siberia, since the worms' lifecycle won't let them persist during such an over-land journey.

This has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon per se (the time frame predates it) but it does call into serious question the assumption that no transfers were made.)

I also think it cool that Europeans wanted people who knew how to take care of turkeys pre-Columbus. (This was the Middle Ages, so nothing to do with BoM specifically either, I just think it fascinating to speculate about the life of the Medieval itinerant turkey expert...)

Kind regards

Greg (itinerant turkey expert...?)

[beastie]

Come on, Greg, cut me some slack. It's obvious what time frame we're talking about.

BTW, can you get the footnotes to show up online? I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong, I downloaded it twice, and no footnote/reference page either time. Sorenson's footnotes can be very interesting.