Non-lds Scholars And The Book Of Mormon

[Cold Steel]

One more thing I meant to add to the above post. It was Margaret Barker who noticed the similarity between the Book of Mormon's account of "white fruit." She writes:

The tree of life made one happy, according to the Book of Proverbs (Proverbs 3:18), but for detailed descriptions of the tree we have to rely on the noncanonical texts. Enoch described it as perfumed, with fruits like grapes (1 Enoch32:5), and a text discovered in Egypt in 1945 described the tree as beautiful, fiery, and with fruit like white grapes. I do not know of any other source that describes the fruit as white grapes. Imagine my surprise when I read the account of Lehi's vision of the tree whose white fruit made one happy, and the interpretation that the Virgin in Nazareth was the mother of the Son of God after the manner of the flesh (1 Nephi 11:14â??23). This is the Heavenly Mother, represented by the tree of life, and then Mary and her Son on earth. This revelation to Joseph Smith was the ancient Wisdom symbolism, intact, and almost certainly as it was known in 600 bce.

Since Barker is an expert in biblical history in the 600 B.C. timeframe, I take this as significant. You can read more at Jeff Lindsay's site.

It's just another is a long line of things that Joseph Smith, Solomon Spalding, Sidney Rigdon or any other purported author of the Book of Mormon couldn't, shouldn't or wouldn't have known about. It's also one of the things that wordprint studies can't explain.

[Sargon]

Sorry... but I don't think David Flusser's view on Pre-Columbian America holds much weight as he is a Jewish and Early Christianity scholar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Flusser

Now, if Michael Coe made this statement, I would certainly be impressed.

As a scholar of ancient Judaism, his comments about the Book of Mormon as an ancient Jewish text would be highly relevant, no matter what continent it was written on.

[John Larsen]

He isn't a fool, that is certain. It's his underlying assumptions I find lacking.

Why don't you start a thread outlining how Metcalfe gets textual criticism wrong? I would be interested in following that one.

[Sargon]

There are Mesoamerican scholars with years of knowledge under their belts who have converted to Mormonism.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...entry1208378821

[sethpayne]

As a scholar of ancient Judaism, his comments about the Book of Mormon as an ancient Jewish text would be highly relevant, no matter what continent it was written on.

Good point.

What I think is a more interesting question, but one that is related to this thread, is how we all cherry-pick our scholars to one degree or another. Conservative Mormon scholars for example, have really latched on to Margaret Barker but tend to ignore Michael Coe. Conservative Mormons take "FARMS scholars" while liberal Mormons gravitate towards "Signature Book scholars."

I think this is one of the potential pitfalls in using scholarship to prop up faith: for every scholar I can quote, you can quote one back who holds and entirely different viewpoint. I think that ultimately, we all have to admit that we choose to believe what we believe and in the end, there is no real proof of anything -- just faith.

[Sargon]

Good point.

What I think is a more interesting question, but one that is related to this thread, is how we all cherry-pick our scholars to one degree or another. Conservative Mormon scholars for example, have really latched on to Margaret Barker but tend to ignore Michael Coe. Conservative Mormons take "FARMS scholars" while liberal Mormons gravitate towards "Signature Book scholars."

I think this is one of the potential pitfalls in using scholarship to prop up faith: for every scholar I can quote, you can quote one back who holds and entirely different viewpoint. I think that ultimately, we all have to admit that we choose to believe what we believe and in the end, there is no real proof of anything -- just faith.

I think that is a good insight.

There isn't particularly anything wrong with citing scholars who agree with your viewpoint. That is what scientists do.

Thus we see the weakness in relying in scholarship for one's faith. We're all damned for believing scholars, and we're told we're damned for trusting our spiritual experiences too.

[Uncle Dale]

....

There, I have shown you "one of these "serious non-LDS scholars" who is now saying

that the book is quite possibly an authentic production of PreColumbian

Americans". Now do you promise not to "miss that point"?

Sounds like a golden prospect for conversion -- he believes that God appeared

to Joseph Smith; and he believes that God directed Smith's translation, and

he believes that the book is a product of God's people in PreColumbian America.

So -- if he believes all of that, determined via "serious scholarship," and not via

a burning in the bosom, why is he not here bearing his testimony of that scholarship?

All I am hearing are allegations that this "serious scholar" has accepted the BoM.

Where is some confirmation, given by this "serious scholar" himself?

No doubt there are a handful of such people, in a world of several billions. My hat is

off to you for discovering one of them. But are you content to let him go on being

"a serious scholar" who is not obeying the gospel and seeking baptism?

UD

[Sargon]

Sounds like a golden prospect for conversion -- he believes that God appeared

to Joseph Smith; and he believes that God directed Smith's translation, and

he believes that the book is a product of God's people in PreColumbian America.

So -- if he believes all of that, determined via "serious scholarship," and not via

a burning in the bosom, why is he not here bearing his testimony of that scholarship?

All I am hearing are allegations that this "serious scholar" has accepted the BoM.

Where is some confirmation, given by this "serious scholar" himself?

No doubt there are a handful of such people, in a world of several billions. My hat is

off to you for discovering one of them. But are you content to let him go on being

"a serious scholar" who is not obeying the gospel and seeking baptism?

UD

Uh...did you not read the article?

Another Israeli scholar interested in the Book of Mormon was Professor David Flusser. When David Galbraith introduced me to Flusser, he had already retired as chairman of the Department of Comparative Religions at the Hebrew University. He was an avid fan of the Book of Mormon and especially of Joseph Smith, whom he regularly called â??the prophet.â? He referred to Jews and Mormons as â??usâ? and the rest of the world as â??them.â? He often spoke to our BYU semester-abroad groups in Jerusalem, depicting Joseph Smith as a prophet inspired by God. One evening, after one of his lectures, I drove him home and decided to inquire about his assertion that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Though I didn't tell him so, I really wanted to know why a man like Flusser could say Joseph was a prophet, but not join the Church. He explained that Joseph Smith's first vision was not a unique experience, that it was shared by a number of early Christians in the centuries after the time of Jesus. Flusser accepted Joseph's account of the visit of the Father and the Son as authentic and also believed that he had been inspired in his translation of the Book of Mormon, which Flusser saw as an authentic Israelite record from the New World. But he did not believe that Joseph had received other revelations from God, and that his stories about the restoration of the priesthood and the Church were unfounded.

Interestingly, on subjects that this professor is an expert in he accepts the Book of Mormon as authentic.

[Smith]

Show me one of these "serious non-LDS scholars" who is now saying

that the book is quite possibly an authentic production of PreColumbian

Americans, inscribing their history and religion on metal plates, and I

promise not to "miss that point."

Would that be like Jesus needed the rubber stamp of the scribes and the pharisees before his teachings could be accepted by the Jews?

[Uncle Dale]

Uh...did you not read the article?

Interestingly, on subjects that this professor is an expert in he accepts the Book of Mormon as authentic.

OK then, let me get this straight.

This fellow accepts Joseph Smith as the prophet of God in the final dispensation

of the gospel -- and he accepts the Christian religion of the Nephites. All of these

conclusions he has reached through scholarship in fields where he is a leading expert.

But he also, through that same expert scholarship, has concluded that Smith was

a fallen prophet, after 1830, and that he cannot accept/trust any of Smith's subsequent

claims to revelation or inspired leadership of the Church.

If his scholarship on the pre-1830 Joseph Smith is accepted by the LDS; why do they

not accept this guy's scholarship on the post-1830 Joseph Smith?

Where does his expertise on these matters of history and religion begin to break down?

Or, is it possible that he is right?

If he is right, we should accept the BoM and Smith's pre-1830 divine visitations;

along with Nephite theology and ecclesiastic organization --- but we should not

accept Smith's church, nor its leaders.

Perhaps that sort of "scholarship" needs to be published in Meridian Magazine, so that

we all can examine its deductions and arguments.

UD

[Sargon]

OK then, let me get this straight.

This fellow accepts Joseph Smith as the prophet of God in the final dispensation

of the gospel -- and he accepts the Christian religion of the Nephites. All of these

conclusions he has reached through scholarship in fields where he is a leading expert.

But he also, through that same expert scholarship, has concluded that Smith was

a fallen prophet, after 1830, and that he cannot accept/trust any of Smith's subsequent

claims to revelation or inspired leadership of the Church.

If his scholarship on the pre-1830 Joseph Smith is accepted by the LDS; why do they

not accept this guy's scholarship on the post-1830 Joseph Smith?

Where does his expertise on these matters of history and religion begin to break down?

Or, is it possible that he is right?

If he is right, we should accept the BoM and Smith's pre-1830 divine visitations;

along with Nephite theology and ecclesiastic organization --- but we should not

accept Smith's church, nor its leaders.

Perhaps that sort of "scholarship" needs to be published in Meridian Magazine, so that

we all can examine its deductions and arguments.

UD

Don't be so silly.

This discussion is about the personal conclusions of non-LDS scholars who apply their expertise in their respective field to the Book of Mormon. We have demonstrated at least one example in this thread of a scholar who did just that, and concluded that the Book of Mormon is an authentic document of ancient origin.

Since you don't like that, you are trying to magically expand the field of expertise in which this particular scholar is trained. He is not trained in Mormon history. What he rejects is the later revelations of Joseph Smith as found in the D&C and PoGP. Fleusser has absolutely no training in any field that would allow him to provide an informed scholarly opinion on those matters.

He has done his best to understand Joseph Smith. In the realm in which Fleusser is an expert, Joseph passes with flying colors. What more do you want? Oh ya, you want him to also accept other aspects of Joseph's story that have nothing to do with his area of expertise. How is that pertinent to this discussion?

Should we start finding professional welders who can give us their opinion of polygamy? Expert entomologists who have opinions about sheum? What about a stockbroker who can provide an opinion on the Book of Abraham?

Quit being silly.

[Kevin Christensen]

Good point.

What I think is a more interesting question, but one that is related to this thread, is how we all cherry-pick our scholars to one degree or another. Conservative Mormon scholars for example, have really latched on to Margaret Barker but tend to ignore Michael Coe. Conservative Mormons take "FARMS scholars" while liberal Mormons gravitate towards "Signature Book scholars."

I think this is one of the potential pitfalls in using scholarship to prop up faith: for every scholar I can quote, you can quote one back who holds and entirely different viewpoint. I think that ultimately, we all have to admit that we choose to believe what we believe and in the end, there is no real proof of anything -- just faith.

Liking Margaret doesn't mean I have to ignore Michael Coe. I've found the interview with him for the PBS The Mormons to be highly quotable and useful from an LDS perspective. I wrote an essay during the summer in which I quote from the interview and discuss its implications. And I've discussed my take on this board. I find Coe's specific arguments to be wonderfully telling and ultimately faith promoting. For example, he believes that Joseph Smith was a fraud who came to believe his own lies. He states that Joseph Smith was "flabbergasted" on encountering the Stephens book on Incidents of Travel, because up to that point, he had never imagined that location as a setting for the Book of Mormon. And that is where it gets interesting. Coe's take on Smith utterly fails to account for the content of the book. It turns out, following Larry Poulson, that a computerized search of a detailed 3D map of the entire Western hemisphere that meets the details provided for the Sidon turns out exactly one candidate, the Grijalva. Coe's theory requires that this happened not just by accident, but in violation of conscious intent. Coe's theory also requires that the numerous geographic details, march times and directions, and cultural details that happen to fit around Grijalva also happened while the fraudulent Joseph was imagining something else. Coe's expertise on things Mayan, and his valuable contributions there, don't necessarily translate into authoritative pronouncements on the Book of Mormon, even if he did know Tom Ferguson, and read Brodie.

Paradigms choice is all about which problems are more significant to have solved, and which paradigm to follow in dealing with unsolved problems. If I can be as confident of a Sidon as I can be of Nahom and Bountiful, then perhaps horse bones and steel can wait a bit. A Sidon, a Cumorah, the rise and fall of cultures, a major volcanic eruption seem to fit. If I expect the Nephite and Lamanite material culture to be typically Mesoamerican, rather than transplanted Ancient Near Eastern sticking out of the jungle with all the subtly of the Washington Monument, then I'm not inclined to agree with Coe's claim that Mesoamerica provides no actors for the story. I can follow Brant in looking for Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon, rather than looking for the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica.

Basicially, Coe served PBS as the intellectual traffic cop who says, "Nothing to see here folks, move along." He was there to immunize casual viewers against contamination by LDS thought. But, alas, some of us have seen things he did not, and have no inclination to move along.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Brant Gardner]

What I think is a more interesting question, but one that is related to this thread, is how we all cherry-pick our scholars to one degree or another. Conservative Mormon scholars for example, have really latched on to Margaret Barker but tend to ignore Michael Coe. Conservative Mormons take "FARMS scholars" while liberal Mormons gravitate towards "Signature Book scholars."

To the extent that any "scholar" cherry-picks through information it is simply wrong. To the extend that any "scholar" becomes an uncritical disciple of anyone else, it is equally wrong. The essence of scholarship is critical examination. I shouldn't like Barker because other people I admire like her. I need to understand her arguments (and in my case, accept the ones with which I agree based on evidence). I shouldn't dislike Coe because he didn't say nice things about the Book of Mormon. That would be silly. Looking at the kind of "faithful" evidence for the Book of Mormon that he was presented with (and the we continue to churn out) I agree with him more often than not. A very large percentage of what LDS writers produce about Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon is weak (if I am as generous as possible).

I know I have favorably cited "Signature Book scholars" and unfavorably referenced "FARMS scholars," though I admit the ration is usually strongly the reverse.

I think this is one of the potential pitfalls in using scholarship to prop up faith: for every scholar I can quote, you can quote one back who holds and entirely different viewpoint. I think that ultimately, we all have to admit that we choose to believe what we believe and in the end, there is no real proof of anything -- just faith.

I can't disagree. We ultimately believe what we choose to believe. If that belief is based on supposition rather than information, it is uninformed belief, but none the less strong.

[Nomad]

I can't say I agree with you. It's been a while since I read his "New approaches" stuff but his critical work on the Book of Abraham has been very interesting. The back and forth Brian Hauglid and Brent had regarding the KEP here should show that both are very bright and skillful in their critical work.

Phaedrus

The Hauglid/Metcalfe discussion was aborted almost before it started, but many of us felt like William Schryver made both Metcalfe and Vogel look foolish in their exchanges over the course of the past few years. Some of those threads are available in the Pundits section of this message board:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=35608

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=17931

While I don't agree with his speculative work, Vogel is rightfully regarded as a disciplined and respected historian. But I'm not aware of anything Metcalfe has ever done, except to assemble other people's essays into a couple different books. Metcalfe, as was demonstrated repeatedly in the discussions in the Pundits forum, is not trained or accomplished when it comes to textual criticism. At best, he is a hobbyist. Professionally, Metcalfe is a technical writer for Microsoft, working in their gaming division. I'm sure he writes a mean user manual for geeky gamers, but he doesn't appear to have any qualifications as a text critic. What has he done? Where is his body of work? Where can we find anything he has done outside of his editorship of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon and American Apocrypha? Whence this regard for someone who, as far as I can tell, has never done anything to warrant it?

[Nevo]

Where can we find anything he has done outside of his editorship of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon and American Apocrypha?

I guess you missed this: http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/book/...10.htm#exegesis

[Nevo]

This discussion is about the personal conclusions of non-LDS scholars who apply their expertise in their respective field to the Book of Mormon. We have demonstrated at least one example in this thread of a scholar who did just that, and concluded that the Book of Mormon is an authentic document of ancient origin. . . . In the realm in which Fleusser is an expert, Joseph passes with flying colors.

I find Tvedtnes's account highly suspect. And in the absence of any corroboration--any at all--I don't think we should give it too much credence. I'm sure Flusser did say complimentary things about Joseph Smith and Mormonism. He was an ecumenical kind of guy (the last iteration of his book on Jesus was dedicated "to my Mennonite friends"). But I doubt very much that Flusser concluded that the Book of Mormon was "authentic" given that he was an Orthodox Jew, not a Christian. Certainly his book on Jesus didn't betray any debt to the Book of Mormon, noting among other things that Jesus was "probably born in Nazareth" (not "at Jerusalem") and that "John [the Baptist] never accepted Jesus' claim." And I suspect he would have bristled at the Book of Mormon's bald assertion that Second Temple Jews--his specialty--were "the more wicked part of the world" and the only people on earth who would "crucify their God" (2 Nephi 10:3).

[Uncle Dale]

...

Quit being silly.

Not being silly -- just asking for citations of this guy's publications on the subject.

If he accepts the Book of Mormon and Nephite Christianity, that in itself is worth

your bringing to our attention, via his own scholarly writings.

I can give you a list of dozens of highly educated, non-LDS scholars who are just

like thus guy -- only they have derived their testimonies from taking Moroni's

challenge at face value and praying about the book. They occasionally even

publish scholarly papers in RLDS publications, to back up their testimony.

Like your guy, they also reject the LDS Church and its leaders.

Can you at least quote this fellow, on why he rejects Smith after 1830?

UD

[Sargon]

I find Tvedtnes's account highly suspect. And in the absence of any corroboration--any at all--I don't think we should give it too much credence. I'm sure Flusser did say complimentary things about Joseph Smith and Mormonism. He was an ecumenical kind of guy (the last iteration of his book on Jesus was dedicated "to my Mennonite friends"). But I doubt very much that Flusser concluded that the Book of Mormon was "authentic" given that he was an Orthodox Jew, not a Christian. Certainly his book on Jesus didn't betray any debt to the Book of Mormon, noting among other things that Jesus was "probably born in Nazareth" (not "at Jerusalem") and that "John [the Baptist] never accepted Jesus' claim." And I suspect he would have bristled at the Book of Mormon's bald assertion that Second Temple Jews--his specialty--were "the more wicked part of the world" and the only people on earth who would "crucify their God" (2 Nephi 10:3).

Ok. Tvedtnes was lying.

[Sargon]

Not being silly -- just asking for citations of this guy's publications on the subject.

If he accepts the Book of Mormon and Nephite Christianity, that in itself is worth

your bringing to our attention, via his own scholarly writings.

One would need to contact Tvedtnes for that. I know nothing beyond what it written in the article. Unlike Nevo, I don't think Tvedtnes was lying.

I can give you a list of dozens of highly educated, non-LDS scholars who are just

like thus guy -- only they have derived their testimonies from taking Moroni's

challenge at face value and praying about the book. They occasionally even

publish scholarly papers in RLDS publications, to back up their testimony.

Like your guy, they also reject the LDS Church and its leaders.

Then we agree that scholarship is only useful to a certain point, and that highly educated persons can disagree, some of the concluding that the Book of Mormon is indeed true (you being an example of one who doesn't conclude that way). This back and forth "name dropping" game that critics often challenge us to do has come full circle and we end up realizing, again, that scholars disagree.

Can you at least quote this fellow, on why he rejects Smith after 1830?

UD

Like I said above, I can only quote Tvedtnes.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Like I said above, I can only quote Tvedtnes.

Well then, thank you for that much, at least.

You've brought an interesting situation to our attention, and we

can all continue to monitor it, if/when there are any new developments.

UD

[sethpayne]

Ok. Tvedtnes was lying.

No. I wouldn't say that. We all tend to recall and retell stories in a very positive and faith-promoting way.

[Nomad]

I guess you missed this: http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/book/...10.htm#exegesis

How could I have missed something to which I made specific reference? I acknowledge that Metcalfe authored this article in New Approaches .... (And, contrary to the insinuation of an earlier poster in this thread, the notion of Mosiah being the first book translated after the loss of the 116 pages does not originate with Metcalfe. It has been a widely accepted theory for many years now.)

As for Metcalfe's pretensions to textual criticism, I think Royal Skousen (a bona fide scholar in this field) thoroughly dismantled that delusion in his review of Metcalfe: Critical Methodology and the Text of the Book of Mormon.

Readers would also profit from reading Matthew Roper's review in the same volume: A More Perfect Priority?

It's very humorous to me that Metcalfe, of all people, has become, for many of his fellow ex-Mormons, an "expert" in the fields upon which he has chosen to opine. That is the only venue in which someone with Metcalfe's qualifications could get a gig.

[sethpayne]

I think that is a good insight.

There isn't particularly anything wrong with citing scholars who agree with your viewpoint. That is what scientists do.

Thus we see the weakness in relying in scholarship for one's faith. We're all damned for believing scholars, and we're told we're damned for trusting our spiritual experiences too.

The bottom line is.... who cares what anybody else things about your faith?

People who try to argue with the spiritual experiences of others are being arrogantly paternalistic. At the same time, however, I think those of us who proclaim spiritual experience must also be careful to understand the limits of such experiences and must grant others the legitimacy of their experiences as well.

I heard a podcast with Van Hale and Mike Ash a while back where they discussed the meaning of individual spiritual experiences. It was quite refreshing.

[sethpayne]

How could I have missed something to which I made specific reference? I acknowledge that Metcalfe authored this article in New Approaches .... (And, contrary to the insinuation of an earlier poster in this thread, the notion of Mosiah being the first book translated after the loss of the 116 pages does not originate with Metcalfe. It has been a widely accepted theory for many years now.)

My bad. I thought Metcalfe "discovered" this. Out of curiosity -- do you know who did first argue that Mosiah was translated first?

[sethpayne]

My bad. I thought Metcalfe "discovered" this. Out of curiosity -- do you know who did first argue that Mosiah was translated first?

NM. I just found the answer in one of the notes to Metcalfe's article:

3. The Priority of Mosiah. Scholars maintaining Mosian priority, the most widely held solution, ordinarily theorize that Smith resumed with Mosiah followed by Alma, Helaman, 3 Nephi, 4 Nephi, Mormon, Ether, Moroni, Title Page, 1 Nephi, 2 Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Jarom, Omni, and finally Words of Mormon. Advocates for this theory include Hyrum L. Andrus (1966, 124; 1968, 89-90), Edward H. Ashment (in this compilation), Richard L. Bushman (1984, 99, 223n67), Church Educational System curriculum writers (CES 1989, 59), Edwin J. Firmage (1992), Arthur Glen Foster, Jr. (1983, i, 48-53, 83, 205, 244-45, 252-55), the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS 1987, 1:xi), Kenneth W. Godfrey (1988, 11-12), Dean C. Jessee (1970, 277-78), Stan Larson (1974, 16-20; 1977, 87-88), Dale L. Morgan (Walker 1986, 309-10), Max J. Parkin (1979, 69-70, 76, 84), Jerald and Sandra [p.399] Tanner (1989; 1990, 32-37), John A. Tvedtnes (1991, 202; 1992, 223),7 Dan Vogel (1988, 124n37), Wesley P. Walters (1990, 90, 93-94), John W. Welch and Tim Rathbone (1986, 1, 17, 21-22, 26-28, 33-39; 1992a, 212; 1992b, 2-4, 8; see also Welch 1988, 46-47; 1990, 130-31, 134), and Robert John Woodford (1974, 203-204).