How Shall we Read the Book of Mormon?

[Brant Gardner]

In several recent (and older) threads on the Book of Mormon, the discussion has devolved into an issue of how the text shall be read. In a current thread, the argument is reasserted that there are no "others" in the Book of Mormon because they are not explicitly mentioned, with all peoples being referenced by some version of Nephite or Lamanite (or some other designation relating to a people from the Old World).

In other discussions, this has been suggested as the "plain reading" of the text. It is an argument used not only about the "others" but as an argument that the text itself "requires" a hemispheric reading.

Since this is essentially a difference of opinion about how one reads the text (since someone else's "plain" reading might not be "plain" to me), I thought we might discuss the principles upon which we should approach such a question.

I was recently rereading a book I read a number of years back, Jeremy Campbell's Grammatical Man: Information, Entropy, Language, and Life (1982). There is a relevant passage:

(p. 65) "One day, A Western Union operator telephoned with a cable from Tribus's daughter, who was traveling in Europe. The cable had been sent from Paris. The operator read the message over the telephone as follows:

PLEASE SEND ME FIFTY DOLLARS AMERICAN EXPRESS NICE LETTER OF EXPLANATION FOLLOWS LOVE YOU."

What is the "plain reading" of the cable message? Campbell notes that while it easily scans as a "nice letter of explanation follows," there isn't a really compelling reason to add "nice" to this message. He suggests that the real meaning, for one who knew that there were more than one American Express offices, that it was the "American Express Nice" (city, not adjective).

What, then, is the relationship of the context in which we read the Book of Mormon to the meaning of the words in the text?

[Uncle Dale]

In several recent (and older) threads on the Book of Mormon, the discussion has devolved into an issue of how the text shall be read. In a current thread, the argument is reasserted that there are no "others" in the Book of Mormon because they are not explicitly mentioned, with all peoples being referenced by some version of Nephite or Lamanite (or some other designation relating to a people from the Old World).

In other discussions, this has been suggested as the "plain reading" of the text. It is an argument used not only about the "others" but as an argument that the text itself "requires" a hemispheric reading.

Since this is essentially a difference of opinion about how one reads the text (since someone else's "plain" reading might not be "plain" to me), I thought we might discuss the principles upon which we should approach such a question.

I was recently rereading a book I read a number of years back, Jeremy Campbell's Grammatical Man: Information, Entropy, Language, and Life (1982). There is a relevant passage:

(p. 65) "One day, A Western Union operator telephoned with a cable from Tribus's daughter, who was traveling in Europe. The cable had been sent from Paris. The operator read the message over the telephone as follows:

PLEASE SEND ME FIFTY DOLLARS AMERICAN EXPRESS NICE LETTER OF EXPLANATION FOLLOWS LOVE YOU."

What is the "plain reading" of the cable message? Campbell notes that while it easily scans as a "nice letter of explanation follows," there isn't a really compelling reason to add "nice" to this message. He suggests that the real meaning, for one who knew that there were more than one American Express offices, that it was the "American Express Nice" (city, not adjective).

What, then, is the relationship of the context in which we read the Book of Mormon to the meaning of the words in the text?

I suggest two parallel, co-existing approaches to the book's text.

1. Relying upon the revelations, pronouncements and counsel to the Saints, provided by latter day

prophets, seers, revelators and translators.

This approach, I would call the "orothodox reading," or the "holy reading." It would be almost entirely

literal, starting with the premise that the text inscribed upon the golden plates was a prefect one, and

that subsequent revelation has added to it in a manner both literal and perfect.

Thus, when we read in the Book of Commandments or the 1835 D&C, or some contemporary version

of a revelation, that missionaries were to go to the "Lamanites" and that the millennial temple was

to be built "among the Lamanites" or on the "borders of the Lamanites," that the message be taken

literally, as identifying the trans-Missouri Indian tribes of descendants of BoM peoples, etc.

also:

2. Relying upon modern scholarship, both external and internal to the text, as provided by various

and sundry investigators, researchers, scholars, academics and like "experts."

This approach, I would call the "critical reading," or the "consensus reading." It would not always be

literal, starting with the premise that the text came from a now unrecoverable source, which cannot

be consulted to provide the necessary and sufficient knowledge to judge the authenticity and

reliability of the information available in manuscript and published forms.

The second reading would exist independent of the first reading, and the consensus view of the

book's source, nature and meaning would be subject to change over time, depending upon the

"consensus" opinion at any one period. Since this "consensus" would naturally include other readers

than observant LDS, it would entail sub-dividing the general opinion of the text into a number of

sub-opinions, much like we find in contemporary biblical criticism.

Uncle Dale

.

[Mudcat]

This is an interesting topic... in that it discusses 'how' the document should be read and removes, for the time being, the issue of content.

I don't think it would be possible to read the text, without any predispositions and in total objectivity. I suppose any literary interpretations have to filter through an individuals mind that is already crowded with dogma and relative information.

It seems on the most basic level one would need to decide whether they were reading it as a 19th century translation of an older document or do they read it as a 19th century production.

[Brant Gardner]

It seems on the most basic level one would need to decide whether they were reading it as a 19th century translation of an older document or do they read it as a 19th century production.

I believe that you are correct and that selecting one of the two perspectives fundamentally alters the way the text is read. I see real communication issues when we attempt to discuss readings from the two different perspectives against each other.

[Ipso Facto]

In several recent (and older) threads on the Book of Mormon, the discussion has devolved into an issue of how the text shall be read. In a current thread, the argument is reasserted that there are no "others" in the Book of Mormon because they are not explicitly mentioned, with all peoples being referenced by some version of Nephite or Lamanite (or some other designation relating to a people from the Old World).

In other discussions, this has been suggested as the "plain reading" of the text. It is an argument used not only about the "others" but as an argument that the text itself "requires" a hemispheric reading.

Since this is essentially a difference of opinion about how one reads the text (since someone else's "plain" reading might not be "plain" to me), I thought we might discuss the principles upon which we should approach such a question.

I was recently rereading a book I read a number of years back, Jeremy Campbell's Grammatical Man: Information, Entropy, Language, and Life (1982). There is a relevant passage:

(p. 65) "One day, A Western Union operator telephoned with a cable from Tribus's daughter, who was traveling in Europe. The cable had been sent from Paris. The operator read the message over the telephone as follows:

PLEASE SEND ME FIFTY DOLLARS AMERICAN EXPRESS NICE LETTER OF EXPLANATION FOLLOWS LOVE YOU."

What is the "plain reading" of the cable message? Campbell notes that while it easily scans as a "nice letter of explanation follows," there isn't a really compelling reason to add "nice" to this message. He suggests that the real meaning, for one who knew that there were more than one American Express offices, that it was the "American Express Nice" (city, not adjective).

What, then, is the relationship of the context in which we read the Book of Mormon to the meaning of the words in the text?

To me, the most telling irony is that, the more one becomes convinced that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century fiction, the more rigid and unyielding one's reading of the text becomes. Whereas, among those who are inclined to believe in the book's literal historicity, the readings are diverse, often probing, and more often than not subject to revision in consequence of new data or understandings coming to light.

[Mudcat]

I believe that you are correct and that selecting one of the two perspectives fundamentally alters the way the text is read. I see real communication issues when we attempt to discuss readings from the two different perspectives against each other.

With my last reading, I tried to assume the position of a historical text, which I don't think I was able to do the first time I read it. It is still a problematic viewpoint, in that I basically had to synthesize belief... though suspend disbelief might be an equitable term. It does change the tone and direction of dialogue on the text quite markedly though and equally gave me further insight into what LDS believe.

I suppose I could compare trying to discuss the BoM from those two perspectives simultaneously to the difficulties I have discussing the Bible with a good friend who is an atheist. At best, it always turns into debate over the historical accuracy of the Bible.

[John Larsen]

To me, the most telling irony is that, the more one becomes convinced that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century fiction, the more rigid and unyielding one's reading of the text becomes. Whereas, among those who are inclined to believe in the book's literal historicity, the readings are diverse, often probing, and more often than not subject to revision in consequence of new data or understandings coming to light.

In other words, those who are most likely to believe the book are least likely to assign it specific, actionable meaning. Interesting.

[JeffM]

PLEASE SEND ME FIFTY DOLLARS AMERICAN EXPRESS NICE LETTER OF EXPLANATION FOLLOWS LOVE YOU."

What is the "plain reading" of the cable message?

This example shows how an obscure text can present problems of interpretation. I suspect it was specifically chosen because it is somewhat obscure. The point was to use that obscurity to illustrate how subjectivity comes into play when trying to extract a meaning. But let's try another text:

He sat down in the chair in the middle of the room.

The meaning of this sentence appears to be a lot plainer, with less room for subjectivity in its interpretation. But for someone who wanted to dispute its meaning, the subjectivity card could still be played. For example, although it says the fellow sat "down", we know that "down" is a relative term. From a vantage point in space one could say "down" on one side of the earth is "up" on the other side. So, assuming the fellow in our example text is in the USA, someone in China might say the man started from an "upside down" position and sat "up".

What about the "middle" of the room? If the room is not circular, then the chair wouldn't necessarily be in the true "middle" because it wouldn't be the same distance from every point of the surrounding walls. Also, it may not be the same distance from the floor as from the ceiling.

This illustrates how someone could interject a claim of subjectivity even into a text that would normally be called simple. But would the introduction of disputes over "down" and "middle" really demonstate that there was no plain meaning to this text? I think not. The fact is, unless there was some ulterior motive - such as not wanting the text to say someone sat down - a reader would interpret it in a straightforward manner: someone sat in a chair somewhere near the center of a room. The concern over subjectivity would be seen as a concern to evade meaning, not find it.

[John Larsen]

This example shows how an obscure text can present problems of interpretation. I suspect it was specifically chosen because it is somewhat obscure. The point was to use that obscurity to illustrate how subjectivity comes into play when trying to extract a meaning. But let's try another text:

He sat down in the chair in the middle of the room.

The meaning of this sentence appears to be a lot plainer, with less room for subjectivity in its interpretation. But for someone who wanted to dispute its meaning, the subjectivity card could still be played. For example, although it says the fellow sat "down", we know that "down" is a relative term. From a vantage point in space one could say "down" on one side of the earth is "up" on the other side. So, assuming the fellow in our example text is in the USA, someone in China might say the man started from an "upside down" position and sat "up".

What about the "middle" of the room? If the room is not circular, then the chair wouldn't necessarily be in the true "middle" because it wouldn't be the same distance from every point of the surrounding walls. Also, it may not be the same distance from the floor as from the ceiling.

This illustrates how someone could interject a claim of subjectivity even into a text that would normally be called simple. But would the introduction of disputes over "down" and "middle" really demonstate that there was no plain meaning to this text? I think not. The fact is, unless there was some alterior motive - such as not wanting the text to say someone sat down - a reader would interpret it in a straightforward manner: someone sat in a chair somewhere near the center of a room. The concern over subjectivity would be seen as a concern to evade meaning, not find it.

You guys are talking about structural ambiguity arising from grammar. Can you give me a reference example in the BOM?

[Ipso Facto]

In other words, those who are most likely to believe the book are least likely to assign it specific, actionable meaning. Interesting.

Better stated, those who are most likely to believe the book are similarly most likely to bring objective and informed scholarly analysis to bear when seeking to understand the meaning of the text. Those committed to the notion that the book is 19th century fiction adhere just as rigidly to a fixed set of assumptions concerning its text. Even something like The Lord of the Rings is read with a wider range of interpretive possibilities than is the Book of Mormon by its former believers.

[The Dude]

In several recent (and older) threads on the Book of Mormon, the discussion has devolved into an issue of how the text shall be read. In a current thread, the argument is reasserted that there are no "others" in the Book of Mormon because they are not explicitly mentioned, with all peoples being referenced by some version of Nephite or Lamanite (or some other designation relating to a people from the Old World).

I would prefer to talk about the specific examples where you think "others" are mentioned in the Book of Mormon. To me, this is far more interesting and productive than bickering about abstract definitions and generalities (like defining what "plain reading" means once and for all, or showing that there's no such thing).

[John Larsen]

Better stated, those who are most likely to believe the book are similarly most likely to bring objective and informed scholarly analysis to bear when seeking to understand the meaning of the text. Those committed to the notion that the book is 19th century fiction adhere just as rigidly to a fixed set of assumptions concerning its text. Even something like The Lord of the Rings is read with a wider range of interpretive possibilities than is the Book of Mormon by its former believers.

Are believers "most likely to bring objective and informed scholarly analysis to bear" when that objective information is in conflict with their prime assumption--namely a priori belief?

[Ipso Facto]

I would prefer to talk about the specific examples where you think "others" are mentioned in the Book of Mormon. To me, this is far more interesting and productive than bickering about abstract definitions and generalities (like defining what "plain reading" means once and for all, or showing that there's no such thing).

This has been done for years. Matt Roper's FARMS Review articles on the topic present numerous examples. However, critics never actually engage the specific arguments. They say they are willing to do so, just like you have now. But when it actually comes down to addressing the specific cases (like those Roper cites) then the critic invariably falls back into a discussion about what Joseph Smith wrote in the Wentworth Letter, etc., ad infinitum. The discussion about the actual text of the Book of Mormon ends in an argument about what Joseph Smith and his contemporaries believed about the book.

[Ipso Facto]

Are believers "most likely to bring objective and informed scholarly analysis to bear" when that objective information is in conflict with their prime assumption--namely a priori belief?

I'm not aware of any such insuperable conflicts. Indeed, the more I have learned about ancient Mesoamerica, the more I can easily envision the Book of Mormon within its milieu.

[The Dude]

This has been done for years. Matt Roper's FARMS Review articles on the topic present numerous examples. However, critics never actually engage the specific arguments. They say they are willing to do so, just like you have now. But when it actually comes down to addressing the specific cases (like those Roper cites) then the critic invariably falls back into a discussion about what Joseph Smith wrote in the Wentworth Letter, etc., ad infinitum. The discussion about the actual text of the Book of Mormon ends in an argument about what Joseph Smith and his contemporaries believed about the book.

But I am not all talk. I have engaged cdowis' argument about oxen and goats (he thinks they are domestic and evidence of contact with Mesoamerican "others"), as well as Her Amun's argument about whoredoms (he thinks this requires many, many women i.e. polygamy on a grand scale). Both in the other open thread you have been reading. So don't give me this it's futile because critics are chicken nonsense.

If you have another one, please share it. I want to know what you think the text says about non-Israelite/Jaredite "others".

[John Larsen]

I'm not aware of any such insuperable conflicts. Indeed, the more I have learned about ancient Mesoamerica, the more I can easily envision the Book of Mormon within its milieu.

Which may be a product of your mind, as you insinuate, and not an intrinsic characteristic of the Book. Millions of other Mormon envision the Sioux. The ability to create imagined, plausible constructions says nothing to the truth value of the book.

[charity]

There is one real reading of the text: for the convincing of Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ. This must be done with the spirit, of course.

But I do enjoy the other types of uses of the text, and I appreciate the scholarship and intelligence of those who can read the text critically.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I would prefer to talk about the specific examples where you think "others" are mentioned in the Book of Mormon. To me, this is far more interesting and productive than bickering about abstract definitions and generalities (like defining what "plain reading" means once and for all, or showing that there's no such thing).

And this is, of course, the whole problem with the discussion. It shows, if anything, your reluctance to define a specific way to interpret the text.

Your view really becomes a matter of your own opinions about what the text says, what it means, what it should say, and how it should say it. Brant brings this issue up specifically to discover what would count as evidence for and against others as found in the Book of Mormon. If one of you wants to weigh the cow and the other wants to measure its height the conversation from the outset will be futile.

[Ipso Facto]

Which may be a product of your mind, as you insinuate, and not an intrinsic characteristic of the Book. Millions of other Mormon envision the Sioux. The ability to create imagined, plausible constructions says nothing to the truth value of the book.

I have never known anyone who envisioned the Sioux when reading about the Nephites and Lamanites in the Book of Mormon. I'm sure I've been around longer (probably much longer) than you, and everyone I have ever known always envisioned the main events of the Book of Mormon occurring in Mesoamerica. This goes back to my grandfather's day (he was born in 1879). Granted, there are disagreements on things such as the location of the last Nephite battles, (for example, I am among those who believe the final battle took place in New York state) -- but everyone I have ever known, even casual readers, always envisioned a Mesoamerican setting; spoke of the ruins in southern Mexico and Guatemala as "Nephite" or "Jaredite" ruins, etc.

Claims like the one you make above are patently false and have no basis in the reality I have known as a long-time student of the Book of Mormon. There have never been "millions" of Mormons envisioning the Sioux when they read the Book of Mormon. It's a ridiculous statement, unmeritorious of further counter-argument.

[Ipso Facto]

But I am not all talk. I have engaged cdowis' argument about oxen and goats (he thinks they are domestic and evidence of contact with Mesoamerican "others"), as well as Her Amun's argument about whoredoms (he thinks this requires many, many women i.e. polygamy on a grand scale). Both in the other open thread you have been reading. So don't give me this it's futile because critics are chicken nonsense.

If you have another one, please share it. I want to know what you think the text says about non-Israelite/Jaredite "others".

Then engage Matt Roper's Nephi's Neighbors. To my knowledge, it has never been effectively rebutted.

[wenglund]

Since this is essentially a difference of opinion about how one reads the text (since someone else's "plain" reading might not be "plain" to me), I thought we might discuss the principles upon which we should approach such a question.

I can only speak for myself, but the primary principle that I try to use in approaching such a question is "edification". This applies not only in terms of how I may interpret the text (I presume that the "plain" reading is that which I deem to be most edifying), but the extent to which I may engage or debate differing opinions on the matter. If the way I read, interpret, and discuss such questions isn't improving my life or the life of others, then what's the point? ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Uncle Dale]

...

Since this "consensus" would naturally include other readers

than observant LDS, it would entail sub-dividing the general

opinion of the text into a number of sub-opinions, much like

we find in contemporary biblical criticism.

...

For example -- Saints and non-Saints might agree on the wherefore/therefore

distribution pattern in the BoM text; or on the "priority of Mosiah;" or on the

existence of "dictation artifacts" in the original BoM manuscripts, etc.

A consensus agreement upon such structural elements might well "spill over"

into consideration of the meaning of certain passages. For example, if the

Jaredites' submersible vessels were made "tight like a dish," we might agree

that the meaning there conveyed was "tight like a chafing dish," etc.

At least we all could build up a considerable patch of scholarly "common ground,"

whereupon we could discuss certain aspects of the narrative, without all having

to agree exactly where the text came from, or how it corresponds to history.

UD

[Chris Smith]

everyone I have ever known always envisioned the main events of the Book of Mormon occurring in Mesoamerica.

Out of curiosity, where (roughly) do you live?

[Deborah]

I think our reading of the BOM depends on where we are at in our lives. It can mean different things at different times.

But if we are looking at the words and phrases and what they may mean, I think we need to look at them in terms of the 19th century milieu of Joseph Smith. As a translator dealing with a society totally different from his own he had to use terms that could be understood in his society.

[Ipso Facto]

Out of curiosity, where (roughly) do you live?

Not that I'm disinclined to tell you (I live about 20 miles south of the Mountain Meadows Massacre site in Ivins, UT) -- but why do you consider it pertinent?

I grew up in the "heart of Zion" but my wife and I raised our family in diverse places (outside of Utah) over the years. Now we're facing down our mortality ...