Horses and Chariots -

[Beowulf]

But, but...

Exegete, you are INSISTING on gigantic plantations that completely supplant the native vegetation with Old World varieties. And so that you can argue... what?

Since there is no evidence of any such takeover of native vegetation by Old World varieties in Mesoamerica around 2500 years ago, this would mean, then, that no such invasion took place? Ergo, no Book of Mormon historicity?

If that is your intention, it is no wonder that you are pushing so hard for it, and trying desperately to deflect any speculation by Apologists that may shift the ground away from -- and out from under -- that scenario.

But at least you are implicitly conceding the possibility that OTHERS were there, a great step forward from your position of several years ago, when you spent so much time arguing that the small Lehite group could not possibly grow fast enough over centuries to fill out an empty land.

You are making progress...

Respectfully,

Beowulf

[Bernard Gui]

Thanks for acknowledging that you have no expertise in molecular biology, but I couldn't give a kitten's fur ball on what you think about my scholarship; as for Tom's scholarship, you don't hold a candle to him, my friend

[exegete]

Hi Beowulf,

I've reiterated my evidence as explicitly as I can so many times that I no longer care to repeat it. (BTW, I've not "INSIST[ed]" on the size of any Lehite plantation; I've merely pointed to what the BoMor claims. However, if you have some relevant evidence, I'd be happy to consider it.)

Hi Bernard,

Again, breathe deeply, chant you favorite hymn, and let the anger go. (This time I'm a tad more serious than I was last time.)

Cheers,

Brent

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[Bernard Gui]

I know Bernard's off-board identity (see my comments above) and I assure you that he is in no position to mock Simon Southerton's credentials.

[Bernard Gui]

Hi Bernard,

Again, breathe deeply, chant you favorite hymn, and let the anger go. (This time I'm a tad more serious than I was last time.)

Hi, exegete.

How can I be angry when this is so funny? The whole Tom

affair is a total hoot! I've loved every minute of it, haven't

you?

You know, the press conferences, the candlelight vigils, the Baby Autumns,

the travelling slide show, the NA Student Association, and now the

Oscar-nominated Christian Video. What's next? I can hardly wait!

Bernard

When do I....

[Zakuska]

Prolonged effort has been expended to distract us from the elephant in the room. The messenger has, however, been thoroughly riddled with bullet holes.

Of course you had to shoot through Sorenson to get to her....

Ah, the bullets were everywhere.

Hear now the words of the parable.

I was the messenger.

But, I'll live. More's the pity.

Greg

A mere flesh wound?

[exegete]

Hi Bernard,

I'm sorry if my humor offended you. You and I have a history; I suspect that I know what you may be grappling with. Feel free to have the last word.

Best wishes,

Brent

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[Bernard Gui]

Hi Bernard,

I'm sorry if my humor offended you. You and I have a history; I suspect that I know what you may be grappling with. Feel free to have the last word.

Hi exegete!

Offended me? How could you possibly do that?

I grappled with a ham dinner today. It lost.

I haven't thought about you or Tom for soooo long.

What pleasures of the memory you have dredged up!

My friend, you provided me, unworthy as I am,

with a few giddy moments consorting with the Mormon

Intellectual Community. For that I am forever in your debt!

Think of them...

The heady days of headlines and press conferences...

The calls from the world press...

The creation of the Mormon Galileo...

The threat of martyrdom...

The protests and candlelight vigils...

The cries for Baby Autumn...

The public comeuppance of a Mormon stake president...

The Tom Goldtooth caper...

The charges of Cultural Genocide against the Morg...

The Morg kidnapping of 70,000 Native American children exposed...

The ascension of the Mormon Intellectual Community...

The days on the road with the Sin, Skin, and Seed traveling slide show...

The final nail driven into the Book of Mormon's coffin...

The final proof that Joseph Smith was a fraud...

The bringing of the Morg to its very knees...

The desperate scrambling of FARMS morgbots for a response...

THOSE were the DAYS, my friend.

And now it comes down to starring in a couple of Evangelical anti-Mormon videos

and arguing about seeds with an intellectual pygmy.

How did it all go so wrong?

Bernard

When do I get told, "Feel free to have the last word?"

[grego]

Well, I was going to post a lot more, but after that, I'm scared "exegete" might try to find out my real identity and try to come to my house and teach me how to breathe deeply.

exegete wrote:

(Brant Gardner's conjecture that "It is quite probable that the arrival of a ship with sails would have been noticed while still on the horizon, and Lehi's ship might plausibly have been met by some of these residents of coastal Guatemala" opens the door to numerous such farms (see here)).

So you are agreeing with him?

I don't, necessarily.

You've lost me, grego. So the "chosen out" theory isn't John Sorenson's and hasn't been published?

Here is what you initially wrote:

exegete wrote:

QUOTE (grego @ 15 Apr 2006, 06:07 AM)

True. I also don't see them dying out. However, I do see them possibly being chosen out. Does Mathenay have a response to Sorenson on this?

Given that the "chosen out" theory didn't originate with Sorenson and hasn't been published, I can't fathom why you would expect Deanne to "have a response to Sorenson on this?"

I see both Greg and I have one-sided communication problems. But I can see my fault here. See if this reads better:

"True. I also don't see them dying out. (However, I do see them possibly being chosen out.) Does Mathenay have a response to Sorenson on this--the dying out theory, and what might be left, if the plants that died out? (with "this" referring to "dying out", not "being chosen out".)

I know Bernard's off-board identity (see my comments above) and I assure you that he is in no position to mock Simon Southerton's credentials.

I'm curious--why not? (By his response, it didn't seem you know him much. But if you do, you do.) My grandpa never went to much school, but I'm sure he can run a farm better than you. My friend never took much language classes, but understands and speaks much better than most who have. My brother never studied music, but he's a musician. What's the point? If you think a piece of paper or a classroom is THE difference, perhaps that's why you don't understand why more patents and discoveries go to "lower"-educated people, and why the high school grad next door is the millionaire. Especially when sides give evidence and argument, it's not completely dependant on who holds the highest degree and how relative it is, is it? Then there would be no point to discuss, debate, or even argue. Just hold up a paper, and declare victory/ admit defeat.

It seems somewhat he was against, you were for Southerton. Why are you for? What gives you the ability/ credibility to be for, and allow you the ability to deny Bernard the ability/ credibility to feel Southerton was a negative/ funny/ humorous choice? Perhaps you need to spend more time on this board where scholars might even get slightly battered once in a while by non-s.

Frankly, that line-up was hilarious to me, too, and possibly for similar reasons it was hilarious to Bernard. Was it a peer review or a "greatest of Sunstone"-type of party?

I'm confused by your replication (at the end of your post) of one of my paragraphs as if it were your own.

You are correct. Once more, I apologize--I didn't remember I had put it there, and didn't check my post after putting it up. Though BG once said the only other person he knew who read the BoM like me, was you. (Though I would doubt that.) But I doubt anyone would mistake that as mine. Here it is:

exegete wrote:

I wonder what BoMor terms like "Christ," "atonement," and "baptism" really mean

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan writes:

You haven

[beastie]

Determining exactly who authored the BoM is irrelevant in terms of determining its historicity, whether or not it is an ancient Mesoamerican document.

It certainly is an interesting and relevant question in terms of other issues.

If the BoM can be shown to contain information that coincides with the general notions people of that time period had of ancient america, that is information that must be weighed, along with weighing how closely it reflects actual ancient mesoamerican culture.

As I quoted much earlier in this thread, anachronisms have always been the bread and butter of determining forgeries.

Regarding plants, and being "chosen out" or dying out -

I already gave two scriptures that demonstrate that barley was an extremely important crop throughout the BoM. It was factored into their standardized monetary system, for heaven's sake. The cities described in the BoM as being under some sort of Nephite control and who would use that monetary system, spread across the region. So it seems quite reasonable and logical to expect to have found some evidence of that barley in ancient Mesoamerica.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

Determining exactly who authored the BoM is irrelevant in terms of determining its historicity, whether or not it is an ancient Mesoamerican document.

No, you have this backwards. Knowing exactly who authored the BoM is irrelevant if we are concerned with whether or not the text it verisimilar. It is entirely relevant in questions of historicity (or lack of). After all, the book could be ancient Mesoamerican fiction, in which case it would be verisimilar (be of ancient origins) and yet completely ahistoric. The point being that "historicity" and being "an ancient Mesoamerica document" are two distinct things. (Yes I know this is sidestepping - but I needed to make this point).

I am not trying to suggest that names of individuals are that critical. But, in fact, when a person like Vogel takes personal experiences from a specific proposed author's life to interpret the text, at this point he has introduced arguments detailing exact authorship. And so issues over exact authorship become very relevant.

An anacronism is an error in chronology. In general terms, this means that you have something in the text which doesn't fit the time of the text - or rather, which fits a different time period better (its differential). You have to have something to compare it to. And since anachronisms can exist in authentic material as well as in forgeries, you make probablistic claims.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, we aren't (for the most part) concerned with the range of possible scenarios - only really with a small number surrounding two major theories of origins. We aren't concerned with a vast array of dating scemas because we really only have two sets that we are interested in considering (and this of course makes the identification of proposed anachronisms much simpler). But the anachronisms may run both directions. Is it possible, for example, to view "the horses and the chariots" as an anacronism for an early 19th century American authorship (contemporary with the books publication) because of the way that they are used in the text? And for those who argue for historicity, they do get to play the translation card, and the issues with the redactional nature of the work and so on.

Personally, I think that identifying the author (if not by name, then certainly by something more than simply an early 19th century american) is a relevant issue. And I think that Dan Vogel's objective in some of his published material is clearly to make the case that the specific author was Joseph Smith. Others have made the argument for specific identifiable authorship (like Spaulding). So it also matters to them who the author was. And Vogel quite clearly ties authorship to interpretation.

Finally, we both know that one way to respond to alleged "hits" on the part of the author of the Book of Mormon is to go and find a source where such a "hit" might exist. The claim that these represent a pool of knowledge on the part of the author speaks to a pretty specific model of the author. So while we may suppose that it should be simple to take the text and say - "this cannot be historical" - or "this could not come from an ancient author", we seem to find it very difficult to talk about the production of the text indpendant of an author.

Part of this is due to the different ways in which the text is approached. (This is the philosophical aspect of the discussion). To the intentionalist readers (and mind you, this covers nearly all of Evangelical Christianity, among others), you cannot separate the meaning of the text from the intentions of its author. The meaning of the text is grounded in the author's intention. If we don't know who the author is, then how are we expected to know the intent of the author and thus the meaning of the text. For those of us anti-intentionalists, this isn't such a big issue. And I suspect that you (meaning Beastie) might lean in that direction, although I really have no idea whether or not you have given the notion much thought.

Ben

[Jan]

Beastie writes:

Determining exactly who authored the BoM is irrelevant in terms of determining its historicity, whether or not it is an ancient Mesoamerican document.

No, you have this backwards. . . .

Don Bradley disagrees with you, beastie. See his posts here: Apology and Reflections

[beastie]

I'm not clear on where you think Don disagrees with me, but if he does, oh well. Note that I said determining the specific author is irrelevant - weighing how closely it meshes with both nineteenth century thought and ancient Mesoamerica is relevant.

[Dan Vogel]

Ben,

If we don't know who the author is, then how are we expected to know the intent of the author and thus the meaning of the text.

You do it like higher critics do it. Among other things, you listen to the rhetoric and what the author most wants readers to know. If we found this book and did not know the author(s) name or anything about him/her, what clues would we find in the text? The absence of prominent women would suggest a male writer. Dominant themes would suggest an American writer. This writer would be concerned not only about sectarian strife and various false doctrines, but also the future of the Gentile nation and the possibility of the Indians raising up and destroying America as punishment for unbelief and hypocrisy. We would look for a period when Universalism and secret combinations seemed threatening to this author. I think we would even be drawn to the 1828 election as the most likely time when the author flourished.

So, in a way, Beastie is right that we don

[grego]

You do it like higher critics do it. Among other things, you listen to the rhetoric and what the author most wants readers to know. If we found this book and did not know the author(s) name or anything about him/her, what clues would we find in the text?

Sounds like fun. Of course, before one would look at the book, one would first establish the claim(s) of the book, the reason(s)/ purpose(s) it was written, genre, seriousness, etc. And that is why the other statements you made about the book, have a much harder time. Unless, one were to argue that JS was a genius to lay that foundation for the book.

Dan Vogel wrote:

The absence of prominent women would suggest a male writer.  [The book's] [d]ominant themes would suggest an American writer. This writer would be concerned not only about sectarian strife and various false doctrines, but also the future of the Gentile nation and the possibility of the Indians raising up and destroying America as punishment for unbelief and hypocrisy. We would look for a period when Universalism and secret combinations seemed threatening to this author.

I like the use of "suggest"--as seeming, though surely non-restrictive.

So, in a way, Beastie is right that we don

[beastie]

Finally, we both know that one way to respond to alleged "hits" on the part of the author of the Book of Mormon is to go and find a source where such a "hit" might exist. The claim that these represent a pool of knowledge on the part of the author speaks to a pretty specific model of the author. So while we may suppose that it should be simple to take the text and say - "this cannot be historical" - or "this could not come from an ancient author", we seem to find it very difficult to talk about the production of the text indpendant of an author.

The pool of knowledge speaks to a specific time period, not one individual. I disagree with those who seem to feel we must be able to place a document within the hands of a possible author. I think it's sufficient to show what the general understanding of (item or event X) was within the culture from which the writing arose.

I do not believe that it is necessary, or even possible, to identify the specific author of an item to satisfactorily prove it is a forgery.

Part of this is due to the different ways in which the text is approached. (This is the philosophical aspect of the discussion). To the intentionalist readers (and mind you, this covers nearly all of Evangelical Christianity, among others), you cannot separate the meaning of the text from the intentions of its author. The meaning of the text is grounded in the author's intention. If we don't know who the author is, then how are we expected to know the intent of the author and thus the meaning of the text. For those of us anti-intentionalists, this isn't such a big issue. And I suspect that you (meaning Beastie) might lean in that direction, although I really have no idea whether or not you have given the notion much thought.

I think understanding the text's meaning, as intended by the author, is a different issue than analyzing a text to determine possible authenticity. I have always been more interested in the latter, while I often get the feeling in our discussions that you're more interested in the former. Take our past masonic conversations. I don't think it's crucial to know whether or not the author was anti or pro masonic - given either stance, it's still possible to detect the influence of the polemics of the time period regarding masons in the text. You think, IIRC, that it is extremely important to know whether the text was intended to be anti-masonic. That may be important in determining it's real meaning, but not so much in determining its historicity. IMO.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan writes:

If we found this book and did not know the author(s) name or anything about him/her, what clues would we find in the text? The absence of prominent women would suggest a male writer. Dominant themes would suggest an American writer. This writer would be concerned not only about sectarian strife and various false doctrines, but also the future of the Gentile nation and the possibility of the Indians raising up and destroying America as punishment for unbelief and hypocrisy. We would look for a period when Universalism and secret combinations seemed threatening to this author. I think we would even be drawn to the 1828 election as the most likely time when the author flourished.

No. In fact, the assertion that a text is a work of fiction twice removes the author from the text. And we can find clear examples where this kind of approach to the text simply doesn't work. It is akin to guessing. And it certainly isn't verifiable in any sense. And so what you end up doing Dan is looking for parallels in the text which support your 1828 hypothesis.

At the same time, you serve to make my point. Modernity (which includes your higher criticism) is all about the author. Interpretation in modernity is all about establishing the meaning of a text in terms of the author. Hence, you look at "a male writer" (the author). You discuss what "the writer would be concerned" with, and what "seemed threatening to this author". You look at a time "when the author flourished."

You have no way of determining what - in this work of fiction as you describe it - represents the author and what doesn't. And this has always been recognized as a problem with this kind of approach to a text (especially a work of fiction). In any case, back to the real discussion, and away from my excursion.

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

The pool of knowledge speaks to a specific time period, not one individual. I disagree with those who seem to feel we must be able to place a document within the hands of a possible author. I think it's sufficient to show what the general understanding of (item or event X) was within the culture from which the writing arose.

But a pool of knowledge doesn't write a book. An intertext (which is what you are discussing here) is incapable of showing movement between one body of material and another. Furthermore, cultural knowledge as a whole doesn't imply knowledge on the part of a particular member of that culture. And books are not (at least not in the sense that we are talking here) written by a culture, but by individuals. So claiming that this knowledge exists with a cultural pool of knowledge is in fact a suggestion that this knowledge is had by the author(s) if the text. Because knowledge which exists culturally but isn't known by the author isn't relevant to discussions about the authorship of a text. You are talking about probabilities here - but only in the sense that it becomes possible that the author had this knowledge - which must move over into the notion that the author must have had this knowledge for him to have included it in his published work.

So, what you suggest here doesn't even seem realistic. Or are you really suggesting that an author can include material in his writings which he himself has absolutely no knowledge of, yet he can include it because someone, somewhere, in his cultural environment does? When we talk about what the author could have known, we are still talking about the author.

I do not believe that it is necessary, or even possible, to identify the specific author of an item to satisfactorily prove it is a forgery.

Of course you don't - because you, like me, probably believes that such a goal is virtually impossible to reach. At the same time, we have to talk about a conceptual author. Because, as I note, books do not write themselves. And as I commented earlier, Modernity seeks to understand texts specifically in terms of the author and the author's intentions. So interpretations of the text (for the most part - I don't think there are too many post-modernists engaged in the topic) cannot be separated from the conceptual author. And whether we work with an interpretation which identifies that author by name - and palces them in a specific environment (as Vogel does) or with a conceptual model of an author which is placed within a particular cultural pool as you discuss earlier, we cannot escape the author.

I think understanding the text's meaning, as intended by the author, is a different issue than analyzing a text to determine possible authenticity.

Only within postmodernity. Modernity suggests that meaning - that interpretation - can only be understood via the intentions of the author. I don't think that we can take a text (because of the nature of texts) and attempt to determine authenticity apart from meaning. With some texts this can be done - but this is done by looking at the artifact and not the text (for example, discussing the shapes of letters and the patina on them, in the case of stone inscriptions which are "discovered"). But here we have a text which is essentially separated from the artifact. Anachronisms exist as part of the text - and there meaning is absolutely critical. A referece (as I pointed out earlier) to a "plastic arm" in an alleged work by a 17th century poet - if it is read as meaning one of the modern polymers that we refer to as "plastics" - then it becomes an anachronism. On the other hand, since we can find accurately datable texts from the 17th century which use the phrase "plastic arm" and don't mean the modern polymer but something else, then we recognize that there is no anachronism. So the debate over meaning (as seen in these forums and other places) is very much a part of this discussion. And authenticity cannot be determined apart from meaning - particularly since we are dealing with a text in translation, and with (allegedly) ancient concepts expressed in modern language.

I have always been more interested in the latter, while I often get the feeling in our discussions that you're more interested in the former. Take our past masonic conversations. I don't think it's crucial to know whether or not the author was anti or pro masonic - given either stance, it's still possible to detect the influence of the polemics of the time period regarding masons in the text. You think, IIRC, that it is extremely important to know whether the text was intended to be anti-masonic. That may be important in determining it's real meaning, but not so much in determining its historicity. IMO.

I refer you to the comment above about plastic. The problem with the anti-masonic thesis is that it relies almost exclusively (at its core) on verbal parallels. The most signifant one - if you read the arguments - is the phrase "secret combination". Yet, "secret combination" as a phrase occurs as frequently (if not more so) in contexts which are exclusive of anti-masonic rhetoric. Not only this, but it occurs in exclusively non-anti-masonic contexts before the anti-masonic movement, and after the anti-masonic movement. The argument is that this phrase takes on some kind of technical or specialized usage during a narrow window of time, after which it reverts to its earlier usage. The challenge is that there are meanings of the phrase which were contemporary with the Book of Mormon's publication which did not require an anti-masonic reading. Such a narrow reading is all about meaning. There is no explanation of the text which doesn't rely on producing a meaning in the text. So I see this comment as being completely off the mark - in terms of being able to describe what is happening.

As I also noted earlier - there is a real flaw in attempting to locate a text in a historical context which is often understated. And that flaw is that there is also an interpretation of the historical context going on. In this case that flaw appears in the attempt to define "secret combinations" as being a technical reference referring exclusively to the anti-masonic movement. This is an interpretation. And if you note, nearly every response to this issue has been about this interpretation (which is more fundamental to the argument) than about the interpretation of the Book of Mormon - because this interpretation - of the historical context - is less viable. If the phrase "secret combination" occurs within the cultural pool as referring to something other than the masonic fraternity, then we have to decide which meaning is meant - and this is an act of interpretation - and the intention of the author should be considered.

Additionally, I provided published examples of secret socities - robber bands, described as such - which also closely fit (verbally and otherwise). So, again, how do we distiguish between the notion of the narratives as anti-masonic rhetoric - or romanitc fiction (from a position of modern authorship). Further, while the masonic fraternity lost most of its membership very quickly, other secret fraternal organizations (the Oddfellows for example) swelled in membership. Which suggests that the notion of secret fraternal organizations being bad wasn't nearly as widespread as the criticism of the Freemasons was. Again, intention on the part of the author - the meaning of the text as far as the author is concerned - is necessary when trying to determine the answer to this question. It isn't simply a case of presenting evidence. This is a text, and the evidence is all texts, and so interpretation is the heart of the argument. So I am not sure how to take your argument. Language being what it is, the language of the "English translation" will reflect the environment in which that translation was produced. So language itself is not a factor, and if the meaning of the text is not anti-masonic, than any similiarity is accidental and so cannot be considered evidence for the date of authorship.

The argument of anti-masonry in the Book of Mormon is about meaning. And how the meaning of the text suggests a date of authorship (read Dan's recent comments again). The debate then isn't over the parallels in the text so much as it is about their meaning. And no, it is not possible to detect the influence of polemics in a text when meaning isn't considered. There is no way to distinguish between what is influenced by a polemic and what is simply a coincidental use of similar language. But this is precisely the distinction which has to be made - and that is why Vogel argues for uniqueness and the technical usage of the phrase.

Ben

[Dan Vogel]

Ben,

No. In fact, the assertion that a text is a work of fiction twice removes the author from the text. And we can find clear examples where this kind of approach to the text simply doesn't work. It is akin to guessing.

Sometimes it can be like guessing, but not always. The historical-biographical approach is legitimate. I would even maintain that some books couldn

[grego]

Dan Vogel wrote:

What would be verifiable? Do I have to resurrect JS?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan Vogel writes:

Sometimes it can be like guessing, but not always. The historical-biographical approach is legitimate.

No, it is always guessing.

I would even maintain that some books couldn

[Dan Vogel]

Ben,

Finally, as you know, I don't deny the value of looking for the intentions of the author in a text - rhetoric in a text cannot really be understood outside of a context of an author. I just disagree on how we approach the subject of the author and what it means for us. One of these days, I am going to finish my article on the Book of Mormon's portrayal of the author - I find it fascinating.

Let me know when you get done with your article. It sounds interesting. I would like to read it.