Horses and Chariots -

[grego]

beastie wrote:

JS lived in a period in which there was intense interest, and antipathy, toward monarchy in general. It does not take much imagination or historical background knowledge to understand something very basic:

Different kings rule over different areas.

Some kings are more powerful than other kings.

Some areas are wealthier and more powerful than other areas.

Kings of lesser power tend to form relationships with more powerful kings. Europe's history demonstrates this, and nineteenth century Americans were not that far removed from intimate connection with British royalty to forget these basic lessons in power and royalty.

The kings in the BoM are different, however. Excuse my possible lack of knowledge, but I do not see this relationship of kings in Europe--where both are related, and one is clearly under another in authority, power, and land, and they have amicable relations.

Or where people choose their king--everyone knows that kings just aren't chosen!--it's the oldest prince. Yet, in the BoM, we have two clear accounts of people being asked for input/ choosing the king; a whole time period where the youngest prince becomes the next king; and another time where it seems likely that the next king was not related to the previous king at all--also strange for a civially unwarring nation.

beastie wrote:

Deforestation: JS lived during a period in which intensive land clearing was taking place. There were places in the world that already had been negatively impacted by this practice, but knowledge of this is less important, since the BoM does not describe the deforestation in negative terms, just in terms of shipping.

The BoM describes its "deforestation" not as land-stripping, but as tree-stripping, which is different than much of the deforestation going on that you are referring to. In other words, there were still plants, etc.--just no trees.

Also, trees were then being allowed to grow again, so do we have a new concept of "reforestation" from JS, or was that also a much-talked about topic? (Sorry, I truly am ignorant about many things.)

It seems strange that if JS knew about it, he wouldn't mention the emphasis of all the info about it at that time--the negative impact. Instead, we have a new scenario. Also, we hear little other than it was hard to build, so they had to learn to build using a new method.

Question regarding shipping: from where, and how, did Teotihuacan ship timber around 400 AD? (heh, someone who lived during the Erie canal construction writing a story including shipping... go figure.)

It's in the BoM, right at the deforestation part.

And, one point that many critics forget, is that JS was not a zeitgeist compendium of knowledge. Showing that someone knew, versus he was aware of or knew, are two different things. Even if EVERYONE just knew, would still be unconvincing or unsure. I mean, I'm sure I can mention a list of things you've never heard of, or can relate very little about--and vice-versa. But to the people in the know, it's sometimes considered old, familiar knowledge.

While many "points" might have been known to a few, I see two things--having a book in a library three states away, doesn't mean he knew it; and, he also puts twists to common knowledge, to make it uncommon, and sometimes seemingly ridiculous (such as the kings).

beastie wrote:

one final comment, a repeat of an earlier, ignored one:

The fact that Brant, Ben, and Clark, all hope for future evidence of a mesoamerican horse indicates to me that they are not deeply wedded to their current argument, ie, that the context of the BoM does not fit a "horse" as a domesticated animal used in transportation with some structure called a chariot. If they were deeply wedded to this argument, they would realize that it would actually be problematic for the Bom were evidence of a horse to be discovered, because then the BoM would suddenly be inconsistent with that evidence because it is not consistent with a domesticated horse used with transporation.

I believe horses existed.

When I first heard the "tapir" thing, I thought, "Oh My! Ridiculous." However, I admit that it's been shown that there is also the possibility--however less than what I might want to or be inclined to believe--that "horse" could have meant something else, such as tapir.

So, if a horse actually were a horse, that's fine. If it weren't, that would be a different and newer thinking--to me, but I couldn't strongly argue that it would not still "fit". I could complain about it, etc., but it still fits.

Which do I think it was? I think it was a horse. Frankly, though, it matters little to what it really was, as both have been shown to be possibilities.

Is it a loophole? Well, what's a loophole? If it's an illegal way to get out of a situation, no. If it's a different, nontraditional way to get out of a possible situation, then maybe yes. And, it's hardly been proved--actually, evidence is more pro than con--that this loophole is necessary.

I suspect that, if evidence of a horse is one day found, their argument that the text is not consistent with a domesticated animal used for transportation will evaporate overnight.

I believe that there is a difference between "clearly showing" and "not consistent with". I agree that the text does not "clearly show" that relation, though IMO the context does lend to it. I don't see that they argue for "not consistent with", either--though if they did, I would disagree. It's not the part about feeding the horses and getting the chariots ready, either, though I think that that lends to it. It's the part where Ammon's brothers are in prison, and they use the horses and chariots to go. To me, this situation and the king's dedication to Ammon indicate a need for speed, not a ceremonial procession. Also, a king wanting to find out about rebellion (Lamoni's father) would seem to want speed, not a ceremonial procession. So, at least chariots with wheels.

poulsenll wrote:...

Sorry, after last night, I realized that maybe my sarcasm was too strong--this was a case of it. I apologize. My point is, there is nothing "wrong" with English, Italian, or the dictionary I was using--but even with this modern-day translation, the concepts weren't translated perfectly. To most common readers, "wilderness" and "desert" are huge differences and should be duly differentiated--but they aren't. Ask most anyone, What's a wilderness? "Forest, rainforest, woods, mountains, wet, wild country, etc." Desert? "Dry, no plants (except cactus), arid, sparse, etc." Do other definitions cross (not the first ones, or the ones that we usually limit them to.)? Maybe so. Probably so. So they can fit--just not really preferable to me, as a reader. But, that's just the way these two languages worked in this translation.

To me, this supports the possibility of "horse" as "tapir". Along with hippo, giraffe, and deer.

[Greg Smith]

I said:

I don't know if the secularists are unable to refute the evidence. (I thought the Shoe Fits article showed a surprising failure to come to grips with Sorenson's arguments, for example, and rather transparently so.)

To which Beastie asked:

Please share specifics to back this assertion.

To which I now offer the following. I just skimmed through the first couple of sections, and grabbed the first things that jumped out at me again on re-reading. This isn't an exhaustive treatment, by any means. I then snipped one quote from Sorenson's reply afterward.

1. Why Limited models?

The limited geographical models have been advanced in many cases because a close examination of the Book of Mormon suggests that time and distance figures implied between localities are too limited to encompass both North and South America. For the purposes of this paper, I will simply assume that a limited geographical setting might be accommodated considering the history of ideas within the Mormon tradition. (Deanne G. Matheny, "Does the Shoe Fit? a Critique of the Limited Tehuantepec Geography, New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, edited by Brett Lee Metcalfe, (Salt Lake City, Siganture Books, 1993), 271)

This misleads with understatement. The text doesn

[beastie]

The kings in the BoM are different, however. Excuse my possible lack of knowledge, but I do not see this relationship of kings in Europe--where both are related, and one is clearly UNDER another in authority, power, and land, and they have amicable relations.

Think about the United Kingdom, where the King of England was king, and yet his oldest son, the prince, ruled Wales.

Or where people choose their king--everyone knows that kings just aren't chosen!--it's the oldest prince. Yet, in the BoM, we have two clear accounts of people being asked for input/ choosing the king; a whole time period where the youngest prince becomes the next king; and another time where it seems likely that the next king was not related to the previous king at all--also strange for a civially unwarring nation.

I see that alteration as a reflection of the contemporary concerns in JS' time period regarding monarchy. Free-masonry was virulently anti-monarchy, and that anti-monarchy attitude is clearly seen in the BoM, where, for example, Nephi tried to warn the people against wanting a king, and the concession is "electing" a king.

And, the point that many critics forget, is that JS was not a zeitgeist compendium of knowledge. Showing that someone knew, versus he was aware of or knew, are two different things. Even if EVERYONE just knew, would still be unconvincing or unsure. I mean, I'm sure I can mention a list of things you've never heard of, or can relate very little about--and vice-versa. But to the people in the know, it's sometimes considered old, familiar knowledge.

Joseph Smith was not the country bumpkin that these dialogues sometimes portray him to be. Many of these issues were addressed in the sermons of popular preachers of the time period, who were also embroiled in the controversies of the masonry-anti-masonry issues of the time.

However, aside from that, I personally do not believe that JS was the sole author of the BoM. Although I am not completely convinced of the spalding connection (uncle dale makes a very persuasive case, I haven't seen him here lately), I am convinced that Sidney Rigdon was involved in the production of the book. Sidney Rigdon was more educated than JS, that is for certain.

For some reason (that I can't completely figure out myself), I've been involved in these sort of conversations for several years on Z, in the past. These conversations tend to evolve in this direction:

1) Believer: There is NO WAY Joseph Smith could have known this information!!

2) Critic shows how the information was accessible at the given time period.

3) Believer: But you can't prove that JS had access to that information!!!

I know this will irk Ben, if he's still reading (heh heh, can't help myself, Ben), but my stance has always been that when there are two possibilities, and one requires a supernatural act, and the other requires natural acts - even if the natural acts can't be PROVEN, the natural acts are still most likely correct. This is just the way the world works. Nothing supernatural has EVER been proven, but plenty of alternate naturalistic explanations HAVE been proven... so which is more likely to be correct?

So I am unconcerned about PROVING that JS was the sole author of the BoM, or PROVING that Sidney Rigdon was involved, or PROVING that either one had access to certain information, because it is still more likely than the supernatural explanation.

But this exploring the possible nineteenth century evidences really is not my major interest, so I won't spend a lot of time going down that avenue. I am far more interested in the Mesoamerican connections.

For example, along the "electing kings" line - I seem to remember Brant thinking there was a correlation in Mesoamerica to this, but the closest thing I can find is the mat, wherein there was not only a "King", but also a group of counselors, so to speak, involved in making decisions. But this happened later in Mesoamerican history, when the whole emphasis on divine kingship was beginning to wane. I don't see any connection to the specified BoM time period in Mesoamerica.

he BoM describes its "deforestation" not as land-stripping, but as tree-stripping, which is different than much of the deforestation going on that you are referring to. In other words, there were still plants, etc.--just no trees.

Also, trees were then being allowed to grow again, so do we have a new concept of "reforestation" from JS, or was that also a much-talked about topic? (Sorry, I truly am ignorant about many things.)

It seems strange that if JS knew about it, he wouldn't mention the emphasis of all the info about it at that time--the negative impact. Instead, we have a new scenario. Also, we hear little other than it was hard to build, so they had to learn to build using a new method.

I'm not completely certain I understand your point, but if I understand you correctly, I do not believe the negative aspect of clearing land of trees on a wide-scale basis was, during JS' period, discussed in negative terms.

My comment:

Question regarding shipping: from where, and how, did Teotihuacan ship timber around 400 AD? (heh, someone who lived during the Erie canal construction writing a story including shipping... go figure.)

Greg's response:

It's in the BoM, right at the deforestation part.

Yes, I know it's in the BoM, I'm asking for information about the REAL city in mesoamerica that this is supposedly pointing to - Teotihuacan. Where and how were they shipping timber in Mesoamerica around 400 AD? See, Teotihuacan's decline was much later than 400 AD, when it was still at its peak of power. I think this means that they had not yet reached the level of deforestation implied in the BoM, because once they reached that level, the crisis point was already there. Your response was that they didn't reach the crisis point yet because they were shipping timber. So where and how were they shipping timber? In the real Mesoamerica, not the BoM.

Is it a loophole? Well, what's a loophole? If it's an illegal way to get out of a situation, no. If it's a different, nontraditional way to get out of a possible situation, then maybe yes. And, it's hardly been proved--actually, evidence is more pro than con--that this loophole is necessary.

The only reason I am referring to this as a loophole is due to the fact that, in response to Dan's requests about methodology, Brant referred to Blass as methodology, and one of his points was:

5. Always leave an escape door open. Be vague and general, philosophize and moralize. Religious immunity has been the refuge of most eminent forgers in the past, beautiful thoughts and pious allegories, deep interpretations of scriptures, mystic communication to the initiated few, these are safe grounds for the pia fraus (

[Daniel Peterson]

Free-masonry was virulently anti-monarchy, and that anti-monarchy attitude is clearly seen in the BoM, where, for example, Nephi tried to warn the people against wanting a king, and the concession is "electing" a king.

Excellent point. Nineteenth-century Masonic anti-monarchical attitudes are also clearly reflected in the prophet Samuel's resistance to, and then in his very reluctant acquiescence in, the establishment of the Israelite monarchy, as recorded in 1 Samuel 8, in the Hebrew Bible.

Incidentally, an exceptionally good illustration of the anti-monarchical sentiments characteristic of Freemasonry in the nineteenth century is to be found in the son of Queen Victoria, who, while Prince of Wales, served as Masonic Grand Master of England from 1875 until his accession to the royal throne in 1901, when, along with the name "Edward VII," he assumed the title "Protector of the Craft." The current Duke of Edinburgh, royal consort to Queen Elizabeth II, apparently shares these anti-monarchical sentiments, as he is a member of Royal Navy Lodge 2612.

The current Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of Freemasons of England is another committed anti-monarchist known, publicly, as His Royal Highness The Duke of Kent. He is the son of the late Prince George, fourth son of King George V, and the late Princess Marina, daughter of Prince Nicholas of Greece, and is cousin to both Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh.

[Greg Smith]

Joseph Smith was not the country bumpkin that these dialogues sometimes portray him to be.  Many of these issues were addressed in the sermons of popular preachers of the time period, who were also embroiled in the controversies of the masonry-anti-masonry issues of the time. 

If this is so, why did his contemporaries assume that he WAS a country bumpkin, and search desperately for someone else to attribute the authorship of the Book of Mormon to?

The argument seemed silly to them that Joseph could have written it.

However, aside from that, I personally do not believe that JS was the sole author of the BoM.  Although I am not completely convinced of the spalding connection (uncle dale makes a very persuasive case, I haven't seen him here lately), I am convinced that Sidney Rigdon was involved in the production of the book.  Sidney Rigdon was more educated than JS, that is for certain. 

And, of course, you're aware that there was no evidence that Sidney had any contact with Joseph or the Book of Mormon until taught by Parley P. Pratt after his call to preach in October 1830 (see D&C 32), right? [see Documentary History of the Church, Vol. 1, p. 122.] He met Joseph in Dec 1830 with Edward Partridge.

What is the evidence of this alleged conspiracy between Joseph and Sidney? Why didn't Sidney reveal it later with his disaffectation? And Sidney's son claimed that Sidney (estranged though he was) endorsed the Book of Mormon to his dying day, and claimed that Joseph had never told him any story but the angel version, and that he (Sidney) had nothing to do with it other than what Joseph and the Witnesses told him. [see B. H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints, 2 vols., 2:, p.217]

And, you do realize that by bringing Sidney into the equation, you are doing what Joseph's contemporaries did--admitting Joseph couldn't have done it...

Have you READ Sidney's sermons? Not much stylisticlly the same as the Book of Mormon (I find him quite painful in his 19th century idiom, actually.)

The Spaulding theories and all variants thereof are sort of like B-movie zombies: Impossible to permanently kill, despite the fact that they look fake through and through. And, periodically, it seems necessary to put a stake in them yet again.

Kind regards,

Greg

[charity]

beastie, you might be interested in this passage if you believe that Joseph Smith was being virulently anti-monarchial.

Mosiah 29: 13 Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments, yea, if ye could have men for your kings who would do even as my father Benjamin did for this people

[beastie]

This misleads with understatement. The text doesn

[beastie]

Excellent point. Nineteenth-century Masonic anti-monarchical attitudes are also clearly reflected in the prophet Samuel's resistance to, and then in his very reluctant acquiescence in, the establishment of the Israelite monarchy, as recorded in 1 Samuel 8, in the Hebrew Bible.

Incidentally, an exceptionally good illustration of the anti-monarchical sentiments characteristic of Freemasonry in the nineteenth century is to be found in the son of Queen Victoria, who, while Prince of Wales, served as Masonic Grand Master of England from 1875 until his accession to the royal throne in 1901, when, along with the name "Edward VII," he assumed the title "Protector of the Craft." The current Duke of Edinburgh, royal consort to Queen Elizabeth II, apparently shares these anti-monarchical sentiments, as he is a member of Royal Navy Lodge 2612.

The current Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of Freemasons of England is another committed anti-monarchist known, publicly, as His Royal Highness The Duke of Kent. He is the son of the late Prince George, fourth son of King George V, and the late Princess Marina, daughter of Prince Nicholas of Greece, and is cousin to both Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh.

Excellent point. We should conclude that anti-monarchial statements, as well as statements in general about kingship relationships, are so hopelessly generic as to be meaningless evidence in any manner.

The knife cuts both ways, Daniel. You can't claim "parellelomania" on one side, while ignore your own side engaging in the same parallelomania.

beastie, you might be interested in this passage if you believe that Joseph Smith was being virulently anti-monarchial.

Mosiah 29: 13 Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments, yea, if ye could have men for your kings who would do even as my father Benjamin did for this people

[Daniel Peterson]

Excellent point. We should conclude that anti-monarchial statements, as well as statements in general about kingship relationships, are so hopelessly generic as to be meaningless evidence in any manner.

The knife cuts both ways, Daniel. You can't claim "parellelomania" on one side, while ignore your own side engaging in the same parallelomania.

I'll admit that you lost me on this one.

[Brant Gardner]

Some clarifications for exegete:

Both John Clark and Dan Vogel view the BoMor horse as an actual horse (equus). You do not.

Correct, as far as it goes. I can't discern what the animal was from the text. I suggest that the lexical term in and of itself is insufficient to be determinative.

Both John and Dan reject the apologetic involving transcultural (mis)naming of horses. You do not.

I don't know what the "horse" was, because I cannot tell from the text. If it is a true horse, fine enough. If it wasn't, it wouldn't surprise me because of the way animal names exist in translation. I would disagree that it is an "apologetic" position. It is a textual position that is built entirely upon the text itself and known principles of translation. Those are universal and have nothing to do with religious apologetic.

Both John and Dan view the BoMor horse as problematic. You do not.

Here I know that you are not completely correct. I am sure that you are for Dan, but Clark does not see the horse as problemmatic. I don't either, perhaps for different reasons.

Dan, presumably like John's archaeology colleagues, views BoMor horses as anachronistic while John expects that someday a horse bone may be found in support of what the BoMor claims. But again, you do not.

John is likely much more informed than I am about what has been found and the results of the recent testing. I expect that he, like I, am awaiting publication - not the discovery. With that caveat, you are close to correct for John, and incorrect for me.

I'm unclear on how you think Clark's ethnohistorical approach to the BoMor helps your argument about BoMor "horses."

I suggest that you are unclear because you are applying what I said to an entirely different kind of argument. What I said was that there is a difference in how the horse is perceived as a problem for the text. Quite apart from how we talk about the word "horse" in the text is the meaning we attach to it. Vogel clearly attaches a meaning that declares it a firm anachronisms that disqualifies historicity. Clark does not - regardless of what he thinks of the animal in the text. Were he to see it as Vogel, he would not be presenting positive reviews of Book of Mormon historicity, any more than I expect to see Dan present them.

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

We should conclude that anti-monarchial statements, as well as statements in general about kingship relationships, are so hopelessly generic as to be meaningless evidence in any manner.

Not at all. When you have a text like the Book of Mormon you have the best possible opportunity to test historicity, even when there are relatively open statements. The reason is that once you have a geographic context into which to place the text, the timeframe also comes into play.

Book of Mormon kingship follows several interesting trajectories in the text:

1) incipient kingship: this is a titular form that is early applied to the leader of a small and egalitarian society (early city of Nephi).

2) Increasing social division and increasing power in the king: This, interestingly enough, is best seen in later descriptions of Lamanatie kings. The timeframe for this comes a few hundred years before Christ. This is precisely at the point when the Mesoamerican concept of kingship is being developed and becoming increasingly prevalent in the area. What is most important in the archaeological determination is the evidence of social hierarchies. This social division is seen not only in Lamanite descriptions, but in the descriptions of the more important "apostate" influences in Nephite society.

3) Nephite society is a transitional state that attempts to hold on to egalitarian ideals. Anthropologically, they represent an intermediary government that responds to increased population but attempts to retain egalitarianism from the smaller societies. This isn't usually possible, and the social friction is the result of the particular social pressures present in the area at the time.

4) The "king over king" arrangements in the Book of Mormon are appropriate to the discernible relationships of dependent cities as determined from the glyphs. In addition to the sovereignty of each "king," there is an "over-king" to whom the individual cities look. This development occurs in the region the Book of Mormon claims as Lamanite and is only described for the Lamanites. It occurs during a time period when these relationships are being developed, according to the archaeologists.

5) One of the types of inter-site relationships described are formal site-visits where there are very formal head-of-state trips from vassal kings to the over-king. Two such events are described in the stories of the sons of Mosiah in Lamanite territory. The basic facets of inter-city visits fits in time, place, and general description to the patterns discerned from epigraphy.

6) When the Nephites do away with a king, they retain political structures that were active during the reign of the kings. The "voice of the people" was an essential aspect of the kingship and does not appear to change its nature afterward. The political structures of the judges parallel similar political organizations known to exist later in Mesoamerican history when texts finally give us the information we need to discern them. Since those judge-systems were built upon pre-existing clan structures, there is no reason to believe that they were not present prior to that time. Indeed, archaeologists posit such structures as part of the kingship system that were then elevated to ruling function when the king was removed. This is most well-known for the late Chichen Itza, but there are other indications for other locations. In structure, the Nephite judge-system parallels Mesoamerican political systems that similarly removed the king.

The reason that all of these factors exceed the concept of something so general as to be useless is that they are all tied to a specific time and place. They fit both the place and the time periods in that location. The Book of Mormon conflicts between the egalitarian ideal and the social pressure for social hierarchy also reflect the precise social development occuring during the preclassic in that area. On top of that, other cultural data from the same time period also parallel the data in the text.

How is this not parallelomania? The difference is that the method of parallelism that doesn't work relies on unrelated numbers of seemingly similar items that may or may not be parallel when examined. This set of data relies upon an interconnected set of information that requires place, time and historical development. That is a complex of events that is very difficult to fake. It is particularly interesting when the Book of Mormon describes for the Lamanites a particular kind of complex civilization when it expressly terms them "savages." Such an internal contradiction would be a strange result from a single modern author planning to write a historical text. It is, however, exactly the kind of "mistake" that a real historical text "ought" to make.

[Greg Smith]

I think this "JS didn't read his own book" is a problematic stance for anyone who adheres to Brant's model of loose translation, as I tried to indicate earlier on this thread.  I'll try again.

If one adheres to the "JS as reader" model, then it makes sense to state that he didn't really understand or process the book he "translated", or rather "read the translation of".  But once JS becomes fully engaged as translator and not simply reader, then he must understand the text he is translating.  If he understands the text enough to translate an idiom in a meaningful way, then he is processing the information in the text.

This presumes that Joseph is a translator in the scholastic sense, in that he has a deep apprecition for all the nuances of the text he is involved in. Most scholars who translate texts spend years interacting with them, reading commentaries on them to better appreciate the nuances of what is going on so they may better translate, using comparative analysis with related texts/languages, etc.

I understand that Brant holds a fairly "loose" model. I tend to favor a "tighter" model, though I've read much of what Brant has written on this, and am open to being convinced otherwise. I'm sort of the typical amateur reader he needs to persuade, so I'm useful to him in that sense.

But, loose or tight in this case doesn't matter--I would think it entirely possible for Joseph to translate distances and time frames for travel without drawing the implication for the size of geography, as he apparently did not.

The distances for the Zeniffite migration and return are clearly rather restricted. It is one thing to translate the sense of those words, quite another to draw the broader conclusion.

Indeed, my own experience with translation (either into or from English/French, either written or 'simultaneous' verbal translation of a speaker) tells me that when one is translating, one often tends to get "blinded by the details of the moment." That is, I could translate an entire talk or address into French for a French-only audience. When I was done, the French speaker would compliment me on how coherent it was.

Yet, if you had asked me what the substance of the talk was, I really couldn't have told you. I was translating the words as they came at me from the speaker in real time, but synthesizing them into a coherent conceptual whole was not something I could do at the same time. I was right in the details, but didn't grasp the greater whole--forest for the trees and that sort of thing.

I have also translated legal decisions from French into English for private use, not in any professional capacity. I had to go back and read the document translation that I had made into English when I was done to get any sense of the underlying legal arguments! Yet, I was fairly confident that the rendering of any given sentence was correct enough, and I had translated all of them. But, I couldn't have given you more than a vague summary of the arguments, and this was on a much shorter document than the Book of Mormon, and I was not producing translation at anything near the rate that Joseph produced the Book of Mormon text.

In short, my experience says that this is how relatively inexperienced translators (like me and Joseph) handle texts or speeches to which they have no previous experience or exposure, especially if they do a lot of material in a short time. (IE I had never read the legal document or anything like it which I translated, and I likewise had never heard the speaker I was translating address the issues he was addressing.)

Moreover, your assertion implies that not only JS, but most of the other prophets who seem to have understood the BoM in hemispheric terms, never really engaged in the text either.  After all, if it's clear, and unambigious, what excuse could they possibly have for so fundamentally misreading the text?

Well, it is clear, I think. Please demonstrate how the Zeniffite migration and return can be anything less than a few hundred miles at most. The numbers just don't add up otherwise. I've never seen anyone successfully challenge Sorenson's reading on this point. I'd be interested in references if anyone has them.

Why haven't people noticed? Well, it is hardly a theologically important point. I can't think of anything that changes doctrinally if the Zeniffites wandered thousands of miles or a few dozen.

I don't think most people of Joseph's era (Mormon or non-Mormon) or even a generation or two afterward at least, had much experience with the close, critical reading of texts of any sort, especially religious ones, as opposed to devotional reading. Biblical criticism was in its infancy, and certainly the Mormons weren't on the forefront of Germanic criticism, for example.

It has only been in the last generation or two that the Book of Mormon has generally received really serious attention--it was often treated as a source for doctrinal quotes and nothing else.

(I remember family members telling me about how in the 1960s, Church leaders asked everyone to read the Book of Alma over the calendar year. There was much moaning and complaining about how MUCH this was since it was the longest book in the Book of Mormon, and lots of people didn't do it. Fast forward to 2005, when President Hinckley asks people to read the whole book again from August to December, and people hop to it. Everyone simply pays more attention to the Book of Mormon, and read it much more closely and attentively. One of the intriguing things about it is that it really does reward repeated readings--if it didn't, I'd have quit reading it a long time ago, since life is too short.)

People tend to see only what they expect, especially on peripheral points.

Speaking personally, I never read the Book of Mormon as hemispheric. I never really gave much thought to the geographic area anyway; I assumed it was too vague to tell. Then, when I was 12, I read Sorenson's 1984 Ensign articles, and a light clicked on. Things that didn't make sense suddenly made sense, and things I hadn't noticed suddenly seemed blindingly obvious.

The text didn't change; I did, or my perspective and what I was looking for did. I didn't really have a "preconception" to abandon about the geography (other than the fact that nothing was really 'known' or 'said' about it at all), so it's not like I had a crisis of "how does this work," and then settled on LGT to "save" the Book of Mormon.

Sorenson just pointed some things out, and then I started to see stuff he hadn't pointed out in the same light. (Which makes me suspect he is on to something, because I found things independent of him pointing them out, once I started to look.)

This is the nature of complex texts of any sort--we often don't see small details until someone draws our attention to them. (I had a similar experience with the recurrent concept of "nothing" in Shakespearean plays. I'd never noticed it until I did a whole class on Shakespeare, and this was a key hobby-horse of the professor--now I see it everywhere, because he was right. But, I'd had plenty of other teachers never remark on it, and so had never seen it. But, there it was.)

I would find it strange if such things were not abundant in the Book of Mormon--it is a complex, impressive document to say the least. As such, there are always things turning up that I swear must have been added since the last time I read. Crafty boys, those guys in Salt Lake....

Kind regards,

Greg

[grego]

I didn't say JS was being anti-monarchial, did I?

This scripture supports my point, btw.

And you lost me on this one, too.

Is there more than just the one instance of kings like that in Europe? Were there other lesser kings with him, also under the father?

beastie wrote:

But once JS becomes fully engaged as translator and not simply reader, then he must understand the text he is translating. If he understands the text enough to translate an idiom in a meaningful way, then he is processing the information in the text.

To a degree. The more understood a text is, the easier and better translated. We are, at some instances, going through a possible translation like this--

writers --> abridgers writing in a second language --> Joseph Smith --> us. I think that his going back to insert a few clarifiers, for example, show that he wasn't so clear on everything from the start.

Also, as you might have done some translation before, processing information is not the same as clearly understanding it all. Try translating some languages and texts without a clear understanding/ helpful tools/ etc., and you can do it, but it's a horrible translation.

Then there's the point that when translating, especially for the purpose of translating quickly and not for study, one is much more worried about the language and the translation--what the text says--than what the text might mean.

[beastie]

I hope those of you still interested in this thread can be patient, it is going to take me longer to respond during the work week.

First:

1) incipient kingship: this is a titular form that is early applied to the leader of a small and egalitarian society (early city of Nephi).

2) Increasing social division and increasing power in the king: This, interestingly enough, is best seen in later descriptions of Lamanatie kings. The timeframe for this comes a few hundred years before Christ. This is precisely at the point when the Mesoamerican concept of kingship is being developed and becoming increasingly prevalent in the area. What is most important in the archaeological determination is the evidence of social hierarchies. This social division is seen not only in Lamanite descriptions, but in the descriptions of the more important "apostate" influences in Nephite society.

This seems directly contradictory to the BoM.

Jacob 2

12 And now behold, my brethren, this is the word which I declare unto you, that many of you have begun to search for gold, and for silver, and for all manner of precious ores

[beastie]

Greg -

(edited because I was incorrect in my paraphrase of Matheny's comments)

The limited geographical models have been advanced in many cases because a close examination of the Book of Mormon suggests that time and distance figures implied between localities are too limited to encompass both North and South America. For the purposes of this paper, I will simply assume that a limited geographical setting might be accommodated considering the history of ideas within the Mormon tradition. (Deanne G. Matheny, "Does the Shoe Fit? a Critique of the Limited Tehuantepec Geography, New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, edited by Brett Lee Metcalfe, (Salt Lake City, Siganture Books, 1993), 271)

As I reread what she actually said, I find it quite remarkable that you believe this statement merits criticism.

I haven't even gotten to read your directionality criticism. Perhaps it's more substantial than the first one.

Within recent years there has arisen among certain

    students of the Book of Mormon a theory to the effect that

    within the period covered by the Book of Mormon, the Nephites

    and Lamanites were confined almost within the borders of the

    territory comprising Central America and the southern portion

    of Mexico; the Isthmus of Tehuantepec probably being the

    "narrow neck" of land spoken of in the Book of Mormon rather

    than the Isthmus of Panama...This modernistic theory of

    necessity, in order to be consistent, must place the waters of

    Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the

    restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the

    teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100

    years...In the light of revelation it is absurd for anyone to

    maintain that the Nephites and Lamanites did not possess this

    northern land...In the face of this evidence coming from the

    Prophet Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer, we

    cannot say that the Nephites and Lamanites did not possess the

    territory of the United States and that the Hill Cumorah is in

    Central America.  ('The Deseret News', Church Section, Feb.

    27, 1954, pp. 2-3).

http://www.skepticfiles.org/evo2/bomarche.htm

[Greg Smith]

Greg -

As I reread what she actually said, I find it quite remarkable that you believe this statement merits criticism.

It merits criticism because she does not (as I claimed) engage Sorenson's arguments on the issue. If you disagree, please show where she examines/critiques Sorenson's arguments for why a limited geography is required by the text, despite what Joseph or others may have thought about it.

Which was my point--she doesn't interact with his arguments.

I don't think her approach is "objectionable,"--she's welcome to take whatever tack she wants with the issue--but I do think my claim that she does not respond to the evidence which Sorenson cites is accurate.

Of course, this becomes more eggregious as the directionality issues are raised.

Kind regards,

Greg

[exegete]

Hi Greg,

I only have a minute, so I hope my comments don't sound too terse.

I find your comments utterly bewildering:

It merits criticism because she [Deanne Matheny] does not (as I claimed) engage Sorenson's arguments on the issue. If you disagree, please show where she examines/critiques Sorenson's arguments for why a limited geography is required by the text, despite what Joseph or others may have thought about it.

If you've read Deanne's essay at all, you know that the leitmotif of her essay is that the lifeway and material culture described in the BoMor are not consistent with the limited Tehuantepec BoMor geography that John Sorenson et al. espouse. You're certainly free to disagree with Deanne's assessment, but to say that she doesn't "engage Sorenson's arguments" is nothing short of bizarre.

Cheers,

Brent

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[beastie]

It merits criticism because she does not (as I claimed) engage Sorenson's arguments on the issue. If you disagree, please show where she examines/critiques Sorenson's arguments for why a limited geography is required by the text, despite what Joseph or others may have thought about it.

I completely concur with Brent's comment, btw. Her essay was not designed to critique whether or not LGT is required by the text, but rather, to accept it as a "given" and proceed from there to analyze how coherent it is with ancient Mesoamerica.

BTW, I do believe that Sorenson dealt a death blow to the hemispheric model in general, more due to the population level analyses than the distances, due to the fact that he so often draws conclusions based on extremely limited information in the BoM (regarding direction and distance). That is why, when I talk about the likelihood of BoM historicity, I deal solely with LGT. But I simply do not agree that those who did not analyze the BoM from a scientific population growth viewpoint didn't "understand" the text, including Joseph Smith. I find the argument that Joseph Smith didn't really "underestand" the Book of Mormon one of the stranger ones I see on the net.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

I find the argument that Joseph Smith didn't really "underestand" the Book of Mormon one of the stranger ones I see on the net.

There is no question that he "understood" it. The real question is how close Joseph came to the intentions of the author in the meaning that he derived from the text. And so really, this discussion (were it to be continued) would have to shift into a philosophical inquiry into what you mean by 'really "understand" the Book of Mormon'. And of course, the corrolary which is whether or not this is even possible.

Ben

[Greg Smith]

If you've read Deanne's essay at all, you know that the leitmotif of her essay is that the lifeway and material culture described in the BoMor are not consistent with the limited Tehuantepec BoMor geography that John Sorenson et al. espouse. You're certainly free to disagree with Deanne's assessment, but to say that she doesn't "engage Sorenson's arguments" is nothing short of bizarre.

Well, I have read the essay. In some areas she addresses his evidence to an extent, in others she doesn't.

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.

Perhaps you can point me to where she addressed his evidence on the variable directionality used in Mesoamerica. She claims this is the "most fundamental geographical problem" with his model.

Yet, all she does is cite one person who claims that Mayan cardinal directions match the modern. She does not even mention, acknowledge, or address all the other variant models which have been demonstrated in the region, and which Sorenson mentions (by some giants in the field, incidentally).

She comes out looking either extraordinarily ignorant of other opinions, views, and data, or as deliberately deceptive.

If I missed her extensive treatment of this issue, I would be happy to withdraw the assertion as it relates to directionality.

Sorry if you find that "bizarre," but you have to address your opponent's _best_ arguments, and Sorenson has plenty on directionality alone that she doesn't even acknowledge, much less address or rebut.

Quoth beasite:

I completely concur with Brent's comment, btw. Her essay was not designed to critique whether or not LGT is required by the text, but rather, to accept it as a "given" and proceed from there to analyze how coherent it is with ancient Mesoamerica.

I find it ironic that she spends a few paragarphs explaining how earlier Mormons saw it as hemispheric, quoting the literature to back these assertions, etc. She quotes:

* Godfrey

* Metcalfe

* Vogel

All of whom argue essentially for the position that "early saints had no concept that Book of Mormon history should be limited to a small area on the American continent."

Yet, she gives one sentence to why Sorenson argues for limited geography. ("The limited geographical models have been advanced in many cases because a close examination of the Book of Mormon suggests that time and distance figures implied between localities are too limited to encompass both North and South America.")

She doesn't quote any literature indicating the long history of this strand in LDS thought either, quotes in Church magazines and publications, etc.

If you read Sorenson, you will see that he considers the text primary, and that's the whole reason he settled on this.

Thus, one bypasses a key part of Sorenson's argument if one does not at first address what the text REQUIRES. (Or, arguably, whether it REQUIRES anything.)

[she also writes in a footnote later that "All that I am suggesting here is that the Limited Tehuantepec setting is not necessarily as inevitable as some might suggest." It would again be useful to see her address Sorenson's method of building the limited model in order to assess how valid her claim here is.]

My impression of the "Shoe Fits" was that her stance boiled down to, "This whole limited model is all a bit silly or dubious to begin with (insert literature citations here), but let's grant the assumption (no refs) for the sake of argument." I think it clear that she gave more attention and references for the claim that HGT is required--which isn't hard, since she gave no references at all for the limited model. :-)

As I said, this isn't surprising, of course, given Signature Book's agenda and biases, who certainly wouldn't want to illustrate that Joseph Smith produced a text whose stance differed substantially from how he and his contemporaries understood it. That wouldn't suit the party line, after all, and makes things like Joseph Smith as the conscious deceiver so much harder to sell. [see Dan Vogel's recent rather succinct summary of his operational assumptions: "An angel delivering plates is impossible. What

[Dan Vogel]

Greg Smith,

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.

That

[Greg Smith]

That

[beastie]

It's not clear to me why her husband's opinion would matter any more than mine, unless he's also an expert in Mesoamerican studies

He is.

[beastie]

Most this stuff is in Sorenson

[beastie]

still working on catching up

QUOTE (beastie @ Apr 9 2006, 07:01 PM)

Joseph Smith was not the country bumpkin that these dialogues sometimes portray him to be.  Many of these issues were addressed in the sermons of popular preachers of the time period, who were also embroiled in the controversies of the masonry-anti-masonry issues of the time.

If this is so, why did his contemporaries assume that he WAS a country bumpkin, and search desperately for someone else to attribute the authorship of the Book of Mormon to?

The argument seemed silly to them that Joseph could have written it.

QUOTE

However, aside from that, I personally do not believe that JS was the sole author of the BoM.  Although I am not completely convinced of the spalding connection (uncle dale makes a very persuasive case, I haven't seen him here lately), I am convinced that Sidney Rigdon was involved in the production of the book.  Sidney Rigdon was more educated than JS, that is for certain.

And, of course, you're aware that there was no evidence that Sidney had any contact with Joseph or the Book of Mormon until taught by Parley P. Pratt after his call to preach in October 1830 (see D&C 32), right? [see Documentary History of the Church, Vol. 1, p. 122.] He met Joseph in Dec 1830 with Edward Partridge.

What is the evidence of this alleged conspiracy between Joseph and Sidney? Why didn't Sidney reveal it later with his disaffectation? And Sidney's son claimed that Sidney (estranged though he was) endorsed the Book of Mormon to his dying day, and claimed that Joseph had never told him any story but the angel version, and that he (Sidney) had nothing to do with it other than what Joseph and the Witnesses told him. [see B. H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints, 2 vols., 2:, p.217]

And, you do realize that by bringing Sidney into the equation, you are doing what Joseph's contemporaries did--admitting Joseph couldn't have done it...

Have you READ Sidney's sermons? Not much stylisticlly the same as the Book of Mormon (I find him quite painful in his 19th century idiom, actually.)

The Spaulding theories and all variants thereof are sort of like B-movie zombies: Impossible to permanently kill, despite the fact that they look fake through and through. And, periodically, it seems necessary to put a stake in them yet again

Just as today, there were disparate opinions on the authorship of the Bom during his time period. Some thought the text was so poorly written that he HAD to write it, because it had to be written by someone without any education or training. Others thought there was likely another author involved. It's all in the eye of the beholder, I suppose, as to the complexity of the BoM and the ability of JS.

I think that JS' later achievements, learning, and writings, demonstrate his native intelligence and capacity to learn. His family was concerned about education, he was in the debate club. For me, this is satisfactory evidence that he most likely did have the ability to write the text himself. He did not have to write the text within a couple of months, as believers say. He had four years to work on it.

I do not think the section of the BoM that deals with the New World requires any particular training or education, other than exposure to common ideas of the time period. I am not familiar enough, or interested in, the hebraic side of the equation to make a judgment on that part.

Rigdon's writings, and life, were very erratic. Sometimes he was an incredible speaker (and hence writer). At other times, his mental state deteriorated and his was nearly incomprehensible. But the BoM certainly echoes many of the views he had been supporting long before the arrival of the BoM, and there are gaps in his chronology, and some evidence of his presence in JS area. Also, at least once, he told a lie about when he first heard about the boM. (if I have time and energy, I'll reference that lie later).

But am I interested enough to study this seriously? No. Nor do I think it really matters who wrote the BoM. The only thing that matters is whether divine intervention is logically required to explain its existence. That is why the mesoamerican side of the equation is far more interesting to me, because there was very little known about mesoamerican history during JS' period (although misconceptions were rampant). If JS were truly to make direct "hits" with mesoamerican history, it would be a compelling case for divine intervention. So far, the hits I see are either hopelessly generic or based on an interpretation of the BoM text that I simply cannot agree with.