Did Js Believe Others Inhabited The Americas Besides Israelites?

[The Dude]

....except to perhaps establish the fact that his beliefs were as subject to modification as are ours, and that due to greater understanding becoming available to him (like Stephens' Incidents of Travel in Yucatan).

I've been thinking about this. These days it is presented to show that JS modified his belief, or else to show that he didn't know about the ruins of central america because here he seemed so surprised. While it might say something about the latter, it doesn't give straighforward support the former (which you propose). In fact, one could cite JS's remarks about "Incidents of Travel in Yucatan" to show that JS still believed in a hemispheric setting. Not only did he claim the BoM covered ancient events around the Hill Cumorah in New York, but once he learned the specifics, he even claimed the BoM covered the lost civilizations of central america! Can you see any problem with my interpretation?

I'm not taking this stance because I think it strengthens my argument -- although it does. I'm taking this stance because I believe it to be true....

Of course, David will not yield on this point. It is far too central to his pet thesis.

C'mon Will. Maybe Addictio won't yield the point because he believes it to be true.

[William Schryver]

The Dude:

In fact, one could cite JS's remarks about "Incidents of Travel in Yucatan" to show that JS still believed in a hemispheric setting. Not only did he claim the BoM covered ancient events around the Hill Cumorah in New York, but once he learned the specifics, he even claimed the BoM covered the lost civilizations of central america! Can you see any problem with my interpretation?

The problem is that you canâ??t support the initial claim you make: that Joseph Smith ever had any firm beliefs regarding the setting of the Book of Mormon â?? or specifically, the setting of Nephite history. He would have argued, as do modern apologists, that â??Lamanitesâ? did eventually spread to both North and South America. But the real issue is what constituted the land of the Nephites. And that is the question that Joseph Smith approaches after being exposed to Stephensâ?? discoveries. He knew that they had to have lived in a land that was â??covered with buildingsâ? as Mormon and Moroni indicated. They could not have been in North America given the obvious precondition, now could they?

Maybe Addictio won't yield the point because he believes it to be true.

Well, itâ??s pretty clear we canâ??t both be right. And Iâ??m (naturally) partial to my own views.

[The Dude]

The problem is that you canâ??t support the initial claim you make: that Joseph Smith ever had any firm beliefs regarding the setting of the Book of Mormon â?? or specifically, the setting of Nephite history.

You are putting words in my mouth. I didn't claim JS had firm beliefs. He made it up as he went along. Naturally, he would have supposed the BoM geography involved New York because that is where he claimed to find the plates. This notion was not firmly This geographical point was always set in his mind, wouldn't you say? And once he heard about the Yucatan he simply incorproated that element. What's the big deal?

(Edited: I cleared up my thinking in this paragraph from the strikethrough onward.)

He would have argued, as do modern apologists, that â??Lamanitesâ? did eventually spread to both North and South America.

But why would he have argued "as do modern apologists" if he was -- as you say -- never a serious student of the Book of Mormon? Have you just turned against the foundation of your earlier argument?

[Addictio]

This is an interesting argument. If Hugh Nibley or BH Roberts never noticed it, then Sorenson/Roper/Gardner must be wrong. But the argument is wrong, for a couple of reasons.

Maybe you should go back and read again, for context. Thatâ??s not what I was arguing. I was responding to another of WSâ??s contentions- in-the-alternative, in this case, the one appearing at the end of his post. As I noted:

Here, you shift from the issue of the (alleged) lack of evidence for what JS believed about the BoM to the claim that his interpretation -- whatever it is -- would likely not be "relevant" because he didn't dedicate "the time and effort necessary to understand that text."

I could have (and in light of WSâ??s subsequent posts probably should have) responded: â??Stay on point. The issue is whether JS believed in the existence of indigenous others in the ancient hemisphere, and now â?? since youâ??ve raised the point -- how much evidence there is to support my claim that he did not.â? Anyway, I used the Nibley/Roberts example to suggest how easy and pointless it is to claim that anyoneâ??s past failure to â??seeâ? a later consensus (or ascendant) interpretation of the BoM constitutes evidence of any kind (strong/weak) that they lacked diligence or dedication in studying the text. The point is the same whether weâ??re considering the opinions of JS, Taylor, Pratt, Nibley, Roberts, or the entire first generation of BoM readers.

The more extreme version of this move leads to the â??circularityâ? result I mentioned to WS. Which occurs whenever the someone claims that the â??failure to seeâ? a later consensus itself justifies an inference that a person â?? or an entire generation of readers -- are not diligent/dedicated text-studiers. Hold that thought.

But I have already said that I noticed these "Others" long before I read Sorenson or Palmer, reading on my own. I refuse to submit to your dictum that I have to rely on previous generations' interpretation of what the book said (starting with Joseph Smith) rather than WHAT THE BOOK ACTUALLY SAYS. (Sorry for having to shout... heh)

Now, now, Beowulf, letâ??s not try to make the discussion quite so easy for you and so deeply uninteresting for everyone else, including me. If I had adopted that position â?? by dictum or otherwise -- there might be some basis for this type of convenient retort. But there isnâ??t. (An equivalent retort from me, btw, would be to announce that youâ??ve adopted the extreme, circular position noted above.)

OK, letâ??s step back for a minute. The reason Iâ??ve been talking about what JS and contemporaries believed regarding issue â??Xâ? (shorthand, per thread title, for: â??existence/non-existence of indigenous othersâ?) is because the social and interpretive history is fascinating, and because it helps map and contextualize peoplesâ?? current positions on what the text â??claimsâ? or means today. But please note: What JS believed about X doesnâ??t resolve the pertinent interpretive questions (â??what the BoM is saying/claimingâ? about X) nor, within the historicity debate, does it resolve the â??indigenous othersâ? issue(s) in favor of critics. So what turns, if anything, on the answers to the social- history questions â?? the beliefs of JS and contemporaries about X? Depends entirely on how people try to use them in historicity (and other kinds of) analyses and debates.

Regarding the above discussion, I think the first step in addressing the initial question (fer peteâ??s sake) ought to be acknowledging the obvious about what JS and contemporaries uniformly believed about X. The second, more important and interesting question is why they believed it. That is, was it based upon their reading and interpretation of the BoM, or was it just a widespread assumption they made, without any (choose your word) â??genuineâ? or â??reasonedâ? basis in the text? (Btw, it would be so unexpected and helpful were Will to stop conflating the two questions, and perhaps even stop quibbling about the answer to the first.)

It would also be helpful â?? but maybe miraculous -- if Will would stop â??forgetting to rememberâ? the difference between beliefs and claims about (1) how and when the hemisphere was colonized, and the origin/identity of its colonizers and inhabitants (think â??populationsâ? and â??whoâ?), and (2) where the events reported or referenced n the BoM narratives in fact occurred, including their spatial scope, e.g., limited or hemispheric (think â??geographyâ? and â??whereâ?).

Thatâ??s not only because the proposed subject of this thread, and which my arguments address, is JSâ??s beliefs about the former (see (1), above) set of issues. More importantly, the relevant textual and other evidence for beliefs/claims about population issues is fundamentally different from the evidence relevant to beliefs/claims about the geography issues. Edit: The social history of LDS beliefs about population and geography issues is also consiederably different. End edit. I explained this (again) to WS back on the thread that commented on the T Dude/Stewart debate in the Pundit forum. As I recall, I even used the example of the 1842 Times and Seasons articles he frequently mentions. Whatever the articles evidence about a change in JSâ??s and John Taylorâ??s views on geography issues, they support and confirm my assertion that JS and Taylor continued to believe that the Lehite/Jaredite immigrant groups and their biological descendants were the only inhabitants of the ancient hemisphere. That belief is the reason that the articles donâ??t ask or consider whether perhaps some of the ancient cities and artifacts might have been created by some other group of people, like pre-existing indigenous inhabitants.

Thatâ??s also why every ancient site or relic JS ever talked or wrote about was created by the above-noted BoM groups, and not by some other group of ancient inhabitants. No other group(s) existed. As I noted, the same is true of Taylor and Pratt. And contra WS, they continued to hold that belief long after 1850.

Ok, Iâ??m out the door until next week. Have fun, all; I know I will. ;-)

[William Schryver]

Of course, the root of this entire discussion is that (as I have repeatedly observed) the critics want to impose upon Book of Mormon believers a set of prerequisite beliefs in order to frame the debate in terms they know will permit them to effectively disprove the book. For a prime example of this tactic, interested readers may refer to David Andersonâ??s article "The Secrets of NIMs: When the Book of Mormon Was Dictated, Were There 'Others' In It?". (Sunstone Symposium, 2004)

Davidâ??s essential argument can be expressed in what he describes as the following stage by stage description of what he asserts was the evolution of thought surrounding the actors in the Book of Mormon:

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

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

Stage Three: Indigenous "others" become actors in the text, but only on the â??Lamaniteâ? side of things. They are only recognized and referenced as generic "Lamanites" by Nephite record keepers. (Sorenson's 1985 An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon reflects this Stage, but also suggests that, at some later point, Nephites also mixed with indigenous Amerindians. Compare pp. 84, 88.)

Stage Four: Indigenous â??othersâ? become actors in the text on the Nephite side as well. (Sorenson 1992) From the time of Nephi forward, biological Amerindians and their descendants comprise the majority of all actors in the text. (Sorenson & Roper 2003.)

Frankly, I donâ??t dispute the descriptions of stages two through four â?? although I donâ??t believe Anderson accurately conveys the import of Sorenson and Roperâ??s arguments. Stages Two through Four represent what I would expect to see when viewing the progress of Book of Mormon scholarship.

However, it is Andersonâ??s description of Stage One that I consider to be inaccurate, and that is why I have argued in the manner I have.

I have asked Addictio to provide us with the pertinent evidence that he believes establishes the point, in order that we might more effectively examine it and determine whether or not we can definitively state that Joseph Smith believed what David claims he did. (Iâ??m less concerned with his â??contemporariesâ? â?? although I think one will also find that the evidence is sparse when attempting to pin any refined interpretation of the BoM on a particular individual in the pre-Utah era.) The evidence that would establish this point has not been forthcoming. Indeed, it is my opinion that the argument of the critics in this respect is where we might most readily identify the fallacy of circular reasoning. The critics note that the majority of Latter-day Saints have shared a certain set of beliefs regarding the Book of Mormon as a â??historyâ? of the inhabitants of the western hemisphere. That belief can be typified by a notion that the â??narrow neck of landâ? mentioned in the text refers to the Isthmus of Panama, and that the lands north and south are, respectively, North and South America. Also that the final battles of both the Jaredites and the Nephites took place in what is now upstate New York, near the hill in which Joseph Smith claims to have procured the plates of Mormon. Now, since this is what the majority of LDS have believed through the years, it follows that they were so instructed by the founders of the church, in particular Joseph Smith.

The problem is that there is no definitive evidence to support the argument that any particular interpretation was being advanced by Joseph Smith and his contemporaries, other than a vague assumption that the north American Indians were descendants of the â??Lamanites.â? In the period between 1830 â?? 1880 no one undertakes to truly analyze the text of the Book of Mormon; no one advances any interpretation that is based in either prophetic utterance or scholarly study. There are a handful of broadly-articulated inferences, all arising out of something roughly akin to folk myth, but there is no attempt to place the Book of Mormon in a specific setting in the ancient world.

Now, why is this all so significant in terms of our discussion? Because it demonstrates that, contrary to Addictioâ??s claims, there simply is no Stage One except as expressed in the realm of folk belief. And therefore, modern scholars cannot be faulted (once they finally got around to seriously examining the BoM text) for finally beginning to identify and articulate specific conclusions/interpretations for what the text actually says. Anderson (and others of the critics) would have us believe that the evolution of thought on Amerindian origins, as they pertain to the Book of Mormon, has always been in reaction to critical arguments against the book. In many respects, the evolution of Book of Mormon interpretations precedes the critical arguments. Matt Roper notes many of these cases in his must-read paper on this topic:

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=505

In other respects, the critical arguments are a manifestation of the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. The coincidence of the increased study of the Book of Mormon in recent decades and the increase in critical arguments against it are cited as evidence that Book of Mormon apologists are scrambling to respond to the criticsâ?? attacks, when in many cases (such as Sorensonâ??s claims in An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon occur either before or independent of the critical arguments.

Of course, the arguments advanced by both The Dude and Addictio are rooted in the presupposition that the Book of Mormon is purely a creation of the fecund imagination of Joseph Smith, and therefore they can admit to no interpretation that pauses to consider the possibility that the book could possibly be what it claims to be. The Dude wrote:

In fact, one could cite JS's remarks about "Incidents of Travel in Yucatan" to show that JS still believed in a hemispheric setting. Not only did he claim the BoM covered ancient events around the Hill Cumorah in New York, but once he learned the specifics, he even claimed the BoM covered the lost civilizations of central america!

But he fails to demonstrate that Joseph Smith ever held, in the first place, what he (The Dude) describes as a belief â??in a hemispheric setting.â? My question for The Dude is: If Joseph Smith went to so much effort to produce this monumental book that purports to be a record of the ancient inhabitants of America, then why does he effectively ignore the book for the remainder of his life? As I observed above:

â?¦ he didn't talk about it. He never cites it in his sermons. He never teaches from it.

Why? If he is its author, one would understandably expect him to take a more active interest in promoting his masterpiece. But he doesnâ??t. He is content to have it serve solely as evidence that God had called him. To Joseph Smith and others of his era, the book was important for what it symbolized: the heavens were opened again. They had other things to do, for the time being, than dedicate much time to studying the book. Therefore they never demonstrate much knowledge, or even strong opinions, about what it says.

In the final analysis, the most recent interpretations of the Book of Mormon are the result of over a century of increasingly methodical study of its pages. And from the outset, that study has pointed to the very arguments being made in 2007, as evidenced by this extract from Matt Roperâ??s paper:

In an article published in 1875, George M. Ottinger, a faculty member at the University of Deseret (later the University of Utah), explored the idea advanced by some scholars of the day suggesting that the Phoenicians may have helped to colonize the Americas in pre-Columbian times. After surveying this literature, he concluded "that the Phoenicians at one time held intercourse with Jared's people."17 Another Latter-day Saint author, in or about 1887, surmised that Lehi's people and the Jaredites "were contemporary co-workers in the work of civilizing the aborigines of the promise[d] land."18 He viewed the account of Mosiah's union with the people of Zarahemla as evidence for the existence of indigenous peoples already in the land when they arrived. Mosiah "had to teach the Nephite language to the Zarahemlans, for though the parents of both people had come from Jerusalem at about the same time, and must have then the same verbiage, their off-spring took rather to their mothers, as it was but natural. Probably those Aborigines mothers were more numerous and influential, than their Hebrew husbands." Such intermarriages may not have been confined to the Mulekites. "Were most of those who helped Nephi to build that great temple Hebrews, and the many wives and concubines who caused the reprimand of Jacob from within the walls of the very same temple, aborigines?"19

17 George M. Ottinger, "Old America: The Phoenicians," Juvenile Instructor 10 (6 February 1875): 33.

18 Plain Facts for Students of the Book of Mormon, with a Map of the Promised Land (n.p., [ca. 1887]), 3. Although the document is undated, the writer speaks of President John Taylor as being alive and cites a letter from President Taylor to an unnamed member in Logan City, Utah, dated 20 November 1886 (ibid., 4). John Taylor died on 25 July 1887.

19 Ibid., 4n.

(emphasis mine)

At least one hundred and twenty years of arguing for â??othersâ? when the Jaredites and Nephites arrived in the â??promised land.â? What more conclusive evidence could the critics demand?

[DonBradley]

A few points, which may have already been made in this thread:

1) What Joseph Smith stated in 1843 on this subject, as on many others, may not reflect what he believed in 1828-1829.

2) The idea of this Hamite having been in the New World appears to arise with and from Joseph Smith's translation of a portion of the Kinderhook plates.

3) No one disputes that Joseph Smith claimed non-Israelites had inhabited the New World--they're called Jaredites; and, indeed, Parley P. Pratt, writing only a week after Clayton, understood the Hamite in question to have been a Jaredite. To argue that Joseph Smith believed Kinderhook Man (to coin a term) as not of the Book of Mormon peoples, one must assume that he didn't view the Jaredites as Hamitic, an assumption Pratt's letter calls into serious doubt.

Don

[DonBradley]

Hey Addictio,

Thanks for the heads-up.

BTW, I agree that JS's 1843 statements wouldn't necessarily reflect his 1829 views.

All,

The Parley P. Pratt letter, it's significance, etc. are discussed in the Kinderhook Plates thread from a few months back.

I probably won't be sticking around to hash out the issue of "others," but thought I'd add my 2 cents on the Kinderhook plates connection.

Don

[The Dude]

I have asked Addictio to provide us with the pertinent evidence that he believes establishes the point, in order that we might more effectively examine it and determine whether or not we can definitively state that Joseph Smith believed what David claims he did.

This is the claim:

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

You want evidence that Joseph Smith "believed" there was no one but BoM people in this hemisphere.

Small point: we aren't time traveling mind readers (TTMRs) and we can't ever know if JS "believed" what he said, so it's better to ask if someone following JS would think he believed it based on the things JS said and wrote (evidence).

Jwhitlock joins you in claiming JS never spoke of, nor offered interpretations of, the BoM; but I have now seen several examples where he wrote or spoke about the BoM people (Addictio already mentioned some in post #19).

1. The Wentworth and Saxon letters written by Joseph Smith,

2. The passage in the D&C (written by JS) about preaching to the Lamanites,

3. The bones of "Zelph the white lamanite" identified by JS,

4. JS's incorporation of Incidents of Travel in Yucatan as a product of BoM people, and

5. the "lineage of Ham" of Kinderhook Man (love it Don!) proclaimed by JS.

The last three are interesting because they show what a knack Joseph Smith had for incorporating anything from ancient America as representing the BoM. JS never gave any indications that artifact X might have been created by the descendants of far Eastern tribes, or adventurous Norsemen, or Polynesian colonists, or any "other" he imagined off the top of his head. It was always about people from his book. It's as if Joseph Smith had no other theory. He was ready to incorporate things for the BoM as he was made aware of them, without, apparently, any consideration for alternatives.

There can be little question that a follower of JS would come to believe (based on this evidence) that for JS there was no American Indian but those descendants of three migratory groups mentioned in the BoM. Would he have identified Machu Pichu as part of his mythological hemisphere? Absolutely. The Polynesians, probably. The Eskimos, why not?

Is there any evidence JS had any other hypothesis besides the BoM? For fun, could you think up what alternative JS might have had, because I'm mighty curious to hear what's making you so darn skeptical and insistent that there's no evidence that JS had an opinion on this matter.

Or just admit it: there's no evidential case for disputing Addictio's Phase One.

[Addictio]

Returning to the drudgery of ordinary life hasnâ??t killed me, I guess, but hasnâ??t made me any stronger, either.

In his last post, Will Schryver fails again to stay focused on the fundamental issue: What did JS and his contemporaries believe about the presence of indigenous â??othersâ? in the ancient Americas. Iâ??ve argued they plainly did not believe in the existence of such ancient inhabitants. Put differently, and for ease of reference: JS and his contemporaries believed that, before and during the BoM period, the ancient hemisphere was inhabited exclusively by the BoM immigrant groups and their biological descendants.â? For brevity, Iâ??ll refer to that here as the â??Belief Claim.â?

As I said above, it would be useful if WS stopped conflating and confusing answers to two different questions. The first is: â?What did JS and contemporaries believe about the colonization and population of the ancient hemisphere?â? My answer to that initial â??whatâ? question can be summarized in the one-sentence Belief Claim. The second question is: â?? Why did JS and his contemporaries believe what they did?â? For example, were those beliefs based upon their reading and interpretation of the BoM, or were they instead just assumptions, made with little or no â??genuineâ? or â??reasonedâ? basis in the text? My answer to the â??whyâ? question, in essence, is: â??JS & contempâ??s interpreted the BoM text in accordance with a set of identifiable assumptions and inferences that together make up the â??global â?? or hemispheric-- colonization model.â? (Iâ??ve referred WS to articles in which LDS writers recognize the obvious, and summarize the content of those assumptions and inferences.)

As a matter of social/intellectual history, the Belief Claim is either true or false. Yet Schryver doesnâ??t bother to assert or argue that the BC is false; nor does he admit itâ??s true. Instead, he professes skepticism about it, and insists that I â??proveâ? to him the Belief Claim (or equivalent proposition). So, if we ask â??What did JS and contemporaries believe about the origin/identity of the inhabitants of the ancient hemisphere?â? the Addictio response is summed in the Belief Claim. The Schryver response amounts to: â??Well, I either donâ??t know, or I canâ??t tell you. But in any event, Addictio hasnâ??t proven to my satisfaction that the Belief Claim is true.â? In short, as TheDude notes, WS cites/presents no evidence at all that controverts or undermines the Belief Claim. Professing skepticism about whether there is any evidence for the Belief Claim becomes the pretext for ignoring the â??whatâ? question.

So why does WS want to skip directly to the â??whyâ? question? Because the precious little he has to say concerns only the (alleged) basis or grounds for the subject-relevant belief(s) of JS and his contemporaries: his response to the â??whyâ? question. It goes like this: â??Whatever JS and contemporaries believed, it wasnâ??t based upon a â??true analysisâ? or â??scholarly studyâ? of the BoM.â? Instead, it was based on something Schryver never describes or explains, but is content to characterize as â??roughly akin to folk myth.â?

The problem is that there is no definitive evidence to support the argument that any particular interpretation [of the BoM] was being advanced by Joseph Smith and his contemporaries, other than a vague assumption that the north American Indians were descendants of the â??Lamanites.â? In the period between 1830 â?? 1880 no one undertakes to truly analyze the text of the Book of Mormon; no one advances any interpretation that is based in either prophetic utterance or scholarly study. There are a handful of broadly-articulated inferences, all arising out of something roughly akin to folk myth, but there is no attempt to place the Book of Mormon in a specific setting in the ancient world.

Now, why is this all so significant in terms of our discussion? Because it demonstrates that, contrary to Addictioâ??s claims, there simply is no Stage One except as expressed in the realm of folk belief.

[in the last sentence, WS is referring to an assertion of mine heâ??s quoted from a letter to the Editor of Sunstone. The â??Stage Oneâ? assertion WS quotes is an alternative, shorthand way of expressing the above Belief Claim.]

Whatâ??s wrong with this analysis? As Iâ??ve noted, it doesnâ??t purport to provide any competing or contradictinganswer to the â??whatâ? question Iâ??ve offered, the above â??Belief Claim.â? Since WS isn't providing an argument that the Belief Claim is false, notice, when in the last sentence he references the â??Stage Oneâ? expression of that Claim, he doesn't actually contradict it. Thatâ??s because, as a matter of social history, itâ??s difficult to deny the existence of such an initial â??Stageâ? of BoM interpretation. Accordingly, he adds the dismissive, opaque language at the end: â??[C]ontrary to Addictioâ??s claims, there simply is no Stage One except as expressed in the realm of folk belief. â?? (WS may also be saying something trivial like: â??I wouldnâ??t even call what the first generation of BoM readers were doing â??BoM interpretation.â? So Addictio is mistaken to refer to it as such.â?)

Alternatively, and charitably, we might construe WSâ??s first sentence as his proposed (or perhaps inadvertent) answer to the â??whatâ? question. Namely, that â??JS and contemporaries believed only that â??the north American Indians were descendants of the â??Lamanitesâ??â?. But such a claim is obviously false. Itâ??s beyond dispute that both JS and contemporaries like the two Pratts and John Taylor actually did have beliefs about the origin and identity of the ancient inhabitants of the hemisphere. The task is to articulate, based on the historical evidence, what the contents of those beliefs were. That issue and task donâ??t disappear simply because WS conveniently refuses to address the â??whatâ? question.

A few more comments about the above quote: The italicized sentence is a comically broad claim to which there are numerous counter-examples. (Orson Prattâ??s extensive work on the footnote-laden 1879 edition of the BoM? Hmm, so is the problem that it was published two years early, didnâ??t get in under that 1880 wire? Or just that Pratt was still reading the BoM consistent with the global colonization model?) Anyway, contesting that sort of broad claim is time-consuming and pointless; based on its language, the claim will turn out to be circular, true by definition. (Given the normative, subjective â??sortingâ? terms: like â??truly analyzeâ? and â??scholarly study.â?)

Schryver wants to offer an answer to the â??whyâ? question, which is that JS & contempâ??s believed something -- though he wonâ??t say what that â??somethingâ? actually was -- on the basis of what he calls mere â??folk beliefâ? or â??something roughly equivalent to folk myth.â? So what is the nature and content of these â??folk beliefsâ? and â??folk mythsâ?? WS doesnâ??t say, but â?? ignoring the dismissive terminology -- a Bible-based belief in a universal flood would certainly fit the bill. As TheDude has noted, itâ??s a highly relevant, pre-BoM, belief of JS and contempâ??s. Itâ??s also a belief that would --and Iâ??d argue did -- underlie and justify the belief that the Jaredites were the original colonizers of the hemisphere. But I doubt Schryver wants to claim, or believes, that a belief in the occurrence of a universal flood is something â??roughly akin to folk myth.â?

In my last post. I also officiously reminded WS to stop confusing beliefs about BoM geography and beliefs about BoM population issues. I said:

It would also be helpful â?? but maybe miraculous -- if Will would stop â??forgetting to rememberâ? the difference between beliefs and claims about (1) how and when the hemisphere was colonized, and the origin/identity of its colonizers and inhabitants (think â??populationsâ? and â??whoâ?), and (2) where the events reported or referenced n the BoM narratives in fact occurred, including their spatial scope, e.g., limited or hemispheric (think â??geographyâ? and â??whereâ?).

True to form, WS forgets to remember the difference in his subsequent post.

The critics note that the majority of Latter-day Saints have shared a certain set of beliefs regarding the Book of Mormon as a â??historyâ? of the inhabitants of the western hemisphere. That belief can be typified by a notion that the â??narrow neck of landâ? mentioned in the text refers to the Isthmus of Panama, and that the lands north and south are, respectively, North and South America. Also that the final battles of both the Jaredites and the Nephites took place in what is now upstate New York, near the hill in which Joseph Smith claims to have procured the plates of Mormon. Now, since this is what the majority of LDS have believed through the years, it follows that they were so instructed by the founders of the church, in particular Joseph Smith.

Look, WS, I know you know how to paraphrase T Givens. But as Iâ??ve explained before, the substantive and interpretive issues, as well as the social history of the two topics are fundamentally different. While Givens is aware of this difference, he frequently elects not to distinguish between the two. It comes in handy, sometimes, as you've noticed. Like when he wants to "equate" the positions of John Sorenson in 1992, and the 1938 Church Department of Education study guide. (See â??By the Hand of Mormonâ? at 127-29. The 1938 guide actually expresses the 1922 Roberts position, not Sorensonâ??s 1992 position, but calling it a "geography" issue helpfully obscures that.)

At the end of his post WS quotes from the Roper article. The Ottinger statements about the Phoenicians as summed by Roper are (bold emphasis mine):

In an article published in 1875, George M. Ottinger, a faculty member at the University of Deseret (later the University of Utah), explored the idea advanced by some scholars of the day suggesting that the Phoenicians may have helped to colonize the Americas in pre-Columbian times. After surveying this literature, he concluded "that the Phoenicians at one time held intercourse with Jared's people."17

Perhaps thereâ??s some reason that, despite Roperâ??s summary of the reason Ottinger â??explored the ideaâ? and â??surveyed this literature,â? Schryver nevertheless believes Ottinger also must have, you know, engaged in a â??true analysisâ? or â??scholarly studyâ? of the BoM text. If so, what passages should we imagine that he noticed, which dim-witted folks like Orson Pratt and BH Roberts overlooked? (See 1922 Roberts quote per Givensâ??s â??By the Hand of Mormonâ? at 277, n. 38.)

The only pre-Sorenson (pre-1984) example Roper can find of someone claiming that the text refers to or implies the existence of indigenous â??othersâ? who were encountered and/or assimilated by the Lehites or Jaredites is an unpublished article by an unnamed LDS writer circa 1886. At least it was written by somebody after 1880, the talismanic year in which WS believes true analysis and scholarly study of the BoM began to occur.

Based on those two 1875 / 1886 cases, and without explaining how or whether he thinks they weigh against the Belief Claim, WS concludes: â??At least one hundred and twenty years of arguing for â??othersâ? when the Jaredites and Nephites arrived in the â??promised land.â? What more conclusive evidence could the critics demand?â?

Weâ??re talking about the beliefs of JS and contemporaries. Remember? What youâ??ve just quoted from the Roper article doesnâ??t even bear on that. When you get around to developing an opinion on the truth/falsity of the Belief Claim or equivalent proposition, though, that would be a small step forward.

OK, regarding Schryverâ??s oft-repeated complaint that I havenâ??t presented evidence to support my answer to the â??whatâ? question: I canâ??t tell for sure if heâ??s trying to be uhm, tactically clever, or is just being dense. Iâ??ve identified individual examples and â??categoriesâ? or â??typesâ? of supporting evidence. Iâ??ve mentioned articles in which LDS writers recognize and use such evidence. I have no idea why WS thinks I should spend time on the futile exercise of trying to â??proveâ? to him a proposition supported by cumulative, consistent evidence that cuts only one way. So that he can eventually, sagely announce: â??Iâ??m still not convincedâ?? IOW, WS, I donâ??t see why I should take the time to spoon feed it to you, just so you can spit it up on your bib.

If the evidence Roper is addressing in his article isnâ??t sufficient to get you thinking, you might want to try re-reading Chapter 4 of the Givens book. Feel free to stop at page 106 and also be sure to read the first full paragraph on page 103. Compared to Roper, Givens actually does a much more comprehensive and straightforward job of summarizing (for example) the process through which the Bookâ??s historicity, including its eventual role in â??explainingâ? the origin and identity of the mysterious people who â??authoredâ? the ruins described by Stephens and Catherwood came to define its significance. Do you actually not â??getâ? what Givens is saying about JSâ??s, Taylorâ??s, Prattâ??s and Thompsonâ??s use of the BoM and its peoples to explain most every ancient site and artifact (and set of bones) brought to their attention? Why do you suppose he says that JSâ??s emphasis on the historicity and explanatory power of the BoM and its peoples â??thrust the Book of Mormon into a role from which it has never fully extricated itselfâ?? (Id. at 103.) Sheesh, do you think by acknowledging the rather obvious social history point, Givens thinks heâ??s abandoning or conceding the historicity analysis and debate?

Winding down here, in his initial paragraph, WS elects to mischaracterize an unpublished â??articleâ? of mine he obviously hasnâ??t read. What he read and quoted was a subsequent letter to the editor in which I was critiquing some poorly-considered analysis of Blake Ostlerâ??s. WS later makes another attempt at well-poisoning, or who-knows-what, assuring himself and thread-readers that:

Of course, the arguments advanced by â?¦ Addictio are rooted in the presupposition that the Book of Mormon is purely a creation of the fecund imagination of Joseph Smith, and therefore [he] can admit to no interpretation that pauses to consider the possibility that the book could possibly be what it claims to be.

Will, you probably shouldnâ??t engage in that sort of transparent straw-grasping. At least not in public. So what sort of response, gentle reader, do you think this kind of pronouncement warrants? Maybe something along the lines of: â??Boy, do I ever have a trenchant, compelling tu quoque for you!! (Uhm, â??Busterâ??) To the contrary, Mr. Schryver, it is you who â?¦â? and so on?

Finally, WS, if youâ??re going to emulate Givens, maybe you should also take a cue from him and moderate that nervous, testimony-protecting tic a bit. If it helps, try reminding yourself that the ante-mortal Christ gave those light-bearing translation aids to the Brother of Jared, and then, Delicately Calibrating, directed the resurrected Moroni to take the plates back. Too much easy, accessible evidence isnâ??t good for the soul of Terryl or Will, you know, at least according to T. And maybe, for therapy, you might even consider reading John Clarkâ??s edifying comments toward the end of his BYU Studies article, about the value, the er, bracing upside, that critics can provide for stagnating historicity advocates. Or yeah. something along those lines.

[The Dude]

Bump for WS.

I expect a reply in Shakespearean verse