How Shall we Read the Book of Mormon?

[Chris Smith]

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.

It's clearly a reference to Tupperware. And therefore evidence of Others. From the future.

Ipso Facto,

I must object to your statement that those who read the Book of Mormon as a nineteenth-century text are not capable of change or nuance in their interpretation of it. We don't change from a nineteenth-century paradigm to an ancient paradigm, but then you don't change your total paradigm, either. At specific points, however, we are quite capable of change and nuance. I used to think, for example, that a hemispheric reading of the book was the only plausible one, but later concluded that a limited Great Lakes geography may be an equally viable reading. I also used to think that Joseph Smith had plagiarized View of the Hebrews, but later concluded that both had simply emerged from the same intellectual milieu. I could cite other examples, but you get the idea. You probably simply are not aware of the range of critical perspectives because you don't spend a great deal of time reading literature written from that paradigm. So you impute to us a rigid, fundamentalistic approach to the book that fits your preconceptions of us better than it does our lived reality.

Best,

-Chris

[Ipso Facto]

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.

I tend to disagree with this Blake Ostler-esque view of the Book of Mormon translation. I think, rather, that Mormon (and Moroni) saw our society and days, and that they crafted their book accordingly. Not surprisingly -- at least not to me -- the people of the Nephites just happened to be a whole lot like us. Therefore their stories were very easily adapted to the purpose with which Mormon approached his project.

[John Larsen]

I tend to disagree with this Blake Ostler-esque view of the Book of Mormon translation. I think, rather, that Mormon (and Moroni) saw our society and days, and that they crafted their book accordingly. Not surprisingly -- at least not to me -- the people of the Nephites just happened to be a whole lot like us. Therefore their stories were very easily adapted to the purpose with which Mormon approached his project.

If it wasn't written for the people of the 19th century, what possible evidence do you have that it was written for the 21st century and not, say, the 23rd century? Won't those people believe it was written for them also?

[Chris Smith]

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?

Just curious. I get the impression that people in Mormon Country sometimes have a different perspective on matters of faith and belief than people outside it, so I just wanted to know which you were. I guess it makes sense that such ideas should catch on more quickly and thoroughly in some places than in others.

[hagoth7]

I tend to disagree with this Blake Ostler-esque view of the Book of Mormon translation. I think, rather, that Mormon (and Moroni) saw our society and days, and that they crafted their book accordingly....

I agree. Years back, I wrote a senior paper with this same premise.

[Ipso Facto]

It's clearly a reference to Tupperware. And therefore evidence of Others. From the future.

Ipso Facto,

I must object to your statement that those who read the Book of Mormon as a nineteenth-century text are not capable of change or nuance in their interpretation of it. We don't change from a nineteenth-century paradigm to an ancient paradigm, but then you don't change your total paradigm, either. At specific points, however, we are quite capable of change and nuance. I used to think, for example, that a hemispheric reading of the book was the only plausible one, but later concluded that a limited Great Lakes geography may be an equally viable reading. I also used to think that Joseph Smith had plagiarized View of the Hebrews, but later concluded that both had simply emerged from the same intellectual milieu. I could cite other examples, but you get the idea. You probably simply are not aware of the range of critical perspectives because you don't spend a great deal of time reading literature written from that paradigm. So you impute to us a rigid, fundamentalistic approach to the book that fits your preconceptions of us better than it does our lived reality.

Best,

-Chris

Unless I'm confusing you with someone else, I recall that you are one those most rare of animals: a never-been-Mormon-essentially-secular-minded critic. As such, I would not include you in the description I made above. That said, you can't help but to have been greatly influenced by the thinking and assumptions of those "apostate" critics upon whose older works you have relied for your foundational beliefs concerning the origins of Mormonism.

The simple fact is that once one comes to the firm intellectual conviction that the Book of Mormon cannot possibly be what it claims to be (an ancient record), it becomes impossible to see the subtle elements of the book that mark it so indelibly as a lineage record of ancient Mesoamericans. Dale Morgan, for all his other flaws, was at least honest enough to recognize and admit that. Would that our more modern critics had as much candor ...

[Ipso Facto]

If it wasn't written for the people of the 19th century, what possible evidence do you have that it was written for the 21st century and not, say, the 23rd century? Won't those people believe it was written for them also?

I don't see any relevant, substantive differences between 19th century and 21st century Americans -- at least in terms of how the Book of Mormon's spiritual message was designed with "us" in mind. I'm not one who views history as a linear progression, but as a series of repetitive cycles. It just so happens that the ancient Nephites reacted to their world in much the same way that Latter-day Saints react to theirs. We are of a type, it would seem. Of course, we would attribute that to our common heritage. Modern Israel differs very little, in terms of the core issues of our mortal probation, from ancient Israel. Hence the extraordinary applicability of their experiences to ours.

[The Dude]

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.

Yeah, because then we'll end up talking about paradigms or some other obfuscatory meta-garbage. I would rather discuss specifics.

[Ipso Facto]

Yeah, because then we'll end up talking about paradigms or some other obfuscatory meta-garbage. I would rather discuss specifics.

Then go ahead and rebut Matt Roper's paper! It is filled with specifics.

We'll be here waiting ...

[LifeOnaPlate]

Yeah, because then we'll end up talking about paradigms or some other obfuscatory meta-garbage. I would rather discuss specifics.

But this mere waving of the hand as though certain questions fall too far beneath your pillar of insight only makes it appear you aren't taking it seriously from the start. Brant has raised very legitimate questions in this thread and you avoid answering them under the guise of discussing "specifics." What can be more fundamental than understanding the very approach to the text from the start, though?

[Calm]

Just curious. I get the impression that people in Mormon Country sometimes have a different perspective on matters of faith and belief than people outside it, so I just wanted to know which you were. I guess it makes sense that such ideas should catch on more quickly and thoroughly in some places than in others.

I grew up outside of Utah (California and Illinois) and my experience parallels Ipso.

Millions of other Mormon envision the Sioux.

Really? Never personally came across one who did in the many states and countries I've lived in. CFR please. I'd like to see where these millions are and their reasoning. This is not to debate your claim. I am assuming you are not just making a random comment and are serious in your belief that this is so and thus I would like to learn about something new to me.

As a child perusing the pictures during a less than interesting SM, it was obvious to me that the BoM took place somewhere south of the border:

Since the Church has tended to favour this style of artwork (such as in the Visitor Center in Temple Square as well as the BoM pictures themselves), it would seem to me that someone who believes the Sioux were major players (or someone like and in the same location as the Sioux) picked it up from somewhere else and I am wondering where...

[Calm]

But this mere waving of the hand as though certain questions fall too far beneath your pillar of insight only makes it appear you aren't taking it seriously from the start. Brant has raised very legitimate questions in this thread and you avoid answering them under the guise of discussing "specifics." What can be more fundamental than understanding the very approach to the text from the start, though?

There is also the problem of what methodology is acceptable in discussing the specifics. It is too easy to come up with a different approach for each set. Even if this is agreed upon, this doesn't translate well into then combining what has been learned to the text as a whole.

It works if you figure on dismissing the vast majority of specifics because then you'll never get that far, but if one assumes a possibility...even if not a probability...that the text is what it claims to be, it seems to me important to set up a methodology right from the beginning that can handle testing that assumption, both in specifics and in general.

There was a discussion about probability issues on another thread, how difficult it is to judge the actual probability of an event unless one does so in a much greater context. It tells us nothing to point out that an event has multiple hits attached to it probabilitywise unless one compares that event to other known events. Brian Stubbs has found a great number of similar words between languages, besides having to demonstrate that the differences follow a natural language development, he must also demonstrate that this similarity isn't a result of having a limited set of sounds or a natural tendency of language to come up with the same patterns, there must also be demonstrated a statistically significant correspondence.

If one only deals in specifics, how can one ever develop any sort of statistical analysis of those specifics? And without such an analysis, can we ever really demonstrate how significant or insignificant an 'event' is?

[Deborah]

Not surprisingly -- at least not to me -- the people of the Nephites just happened to be a whole lot like us. Therefore their stories were very easily adapted to the purpose with which Mormon approached his project.

I wasn't referring to the stories but some of the phrases and descriptions. I agree the stories relate to us. But like any good classical literature certain stories are timeless and can apply to any generation. Shakespeare is the perfec example, yet look how his stories can be put in modern settings and language. And I am not equating the BOM with Shakespeare. The things I experience in reading the BOM are on a totally different level than when reading Shakespeare.

Certainly the spiritual lessons of the BOM are ones we can relate to today and even the historical context of some of the events in their history are very like some of the things going on today.

[Ipso Facto]

Or maybe this one, replete with Mayan arches and other typical Mayan architectural features. Who knew that Arnold Friberg was at the vanguard of modern LDS apologetics?

[The Dude]

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

LOL Roper relies on Sorenson's analysis of Jacob 7. Check it out.

The original Sorenson:

"The account of Sherem's encounter with Jacob reiterates the question. "Some [ten more?] years had passed away," and Jacob was now verging on "old" (cf. Jacob 7:1, 20â??26). At that time "there came a man among the people of Nephi whose name was Sherem" (Jacob 7:1). Upon first meeting Jacob, he said, "Brother Jacob, I have sought much opportunity that I might speak unto you; for I have heard . . . that thou goest about much, preaching" (Jacob 7:6). Now, the population of adult males descended from the original group could not have exceeded fifty at that time. This would have been only enough to populate one modest-sized village. Thus Sherem's is a strange statement. Jacob, as head priest and religious teacher, would routinely have been around the Nephite temple in the cultural center at least on all holy days (see Jacob 2:2). How then could Sherem never have seen him, and why would he have had to seek "much opportunity" to speak to him in such a tiny settlement? And where would Jacob have had to go on the preaching travels Sherem refers to, if only such a tiny group were involved. Moreover, from where was it that Sherem "came . . . among the people of Nephi" (Jacob 7:1)? The text and context of this incident would make little sense if the Nephite population had resulted only from natural demographic increase."

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display ... =jbms&id=3

Now when I go and read Jacob 7 for myself, I notice many critical things in Sorenson's analysis that aren't actually said in the Book of Mormon passage. First, it doesn't say Sherem had never seen or met Jacob before. He merely says "Brother Jacob, I have sought much opportunity that I might speak unto you...." My lab group consists of only seven people, and at least once a day someone says "I've been looking all over the place for you because I have a question about blah, blah, blah." Sherem's brief statement does not demand huge numbers of people. A village of fifty adult males would be plenty big enough for such a situation to arise.

Second, there are no preaching travels for Jacob mentioned in this BoM passage. Sherem only says, "for I have heard and also know that thou [Jacob] goest about much, preaching that which ye call the gospel...." Going about much doesn't have to mean going on long journeys to distant population centers. If you ever watch Survivor then you know how much gossip and "preaching" goes on behind other peoples' backs when the tribe is only 10 people. Once again, this brief statement does not call for huge numbers of people.

Third, the narrative voice doesn't say that Sherem came from somewhere outside the Nephite group, like another city. It only says ""there came a man among the people." What does came mean, really? Not all that Sorenson/Roper infer from it.

The text and context of this incident would make little sense if the Nephite population had resulted only from natural demographic increase.

What Jacob 7 actually says makes perfect sense with a population of fifty adult males and their wives and children. The elements that point to Sherem coming from another city or Jacob going to other cities are not to be found in Jacob 7, but originate with Sorenson's biased interpretation of the text... that's where evidence for "others" comes from.

In another post perhaps I will tackle something else from Roper's essay. That is, unless you (Ipso Facto) want to point out the BoM scriptures that you think are most convincing. That way I don't waste precious time on the easy stuff.

[Calm]

I tend to disagree with this Blake Ostler-esque view of the Book of Mormon translation. I think, rather, that Mormon (and Moroni) saw our society and days, and that they crafted their book accordingly. Not surprisingly -- at least not to me -- the people of the Nephites just happened to be a whole lot like us. Therefore their stories were very easily adapted to the purpose with which Mormon approached his project.

Whether or not they saw it, the question to me is if they were capable of significantly understanding not only the events they were observing, but the attitudes, beliefs, etc. of the people they were observing. It is a rare person that does not experience some sort of culture shock when immersing themselves in another culture because it is pretty much impossible to glean all the unspoken attitudes, etc. from simple observance or even detailed study.

Even very similar cultures can have significant underlying differences that are not readily observable. In my personal experience though on the surface they appear to be almost identical in almost everything in lifestyle, there is a significant difference in attitude toward government's role in the individual's life between Western Americans and Western Canadians. It took me several years to figure out just how deep this goes, but once I did, I saw how this difference affected huge areas of social and individual life and explains much of the negative emotional reactions to the other country that I observed.

With the spirit all things are possible, but that is the only way I see Mormon and Moroni not having the problem of presentism in reverse.

"the people of the Nephites just happened to be a whole lot like us"

When you say "us", just who do you mean? Americans, Europeans, Asians or some other group because while I would agree that there are some inherent human qualities that I've encountered everywhere, I have found that each social group tends to promote and discourage these qualities in their own way and this difference even exists within a social group over time (one just has to observe the differences in how "morality" is interpreted in certain segments of American society over the past 100 years).

When you say "like us", I think you need to be more specific to demonstrate that this is not just an assumption you are reading into the text, but you have concrete reasons for your claim. There is also a big difference if you mean it in a general sort of way (they care about loved ones, desire physical and financial security, etc.) or more specifics...the type of specifics that appear to be addressed in many of the spiritual lectures and can cause confusion if one assumes more similarity than is actually there (the infant baptism section is a great example...general demonstrates that parents cared about their children like they do today, but specifically was the infant baptism the same we encounter in our society or something else).

[Ipso Facto]

The Dude:

In another post perhaps I will tackle something else from Roper's essay. That is, unless you (Ipso Facto) want to point out the BoM scriptures that you think are most convincing. That way I don't waste precious time on the easy stuff.

I find your so-called â??rebuttalâ? of this particular argument vapid and unpersuasive in its arrogant dismissiveness.

To the contrary, I agree entirely with your quoted statement from Sorenson:

The text and context of this incident would make little sense if the Nephite population had resulted only from natural demographic increase.

Nevertheless, you have extracted one minor point in Roperâ??s paper. And in so doing you apparently hope to convince those following along that the paper merits little of your â??precious time on the easy stuff.â?

One of the major elements in the modern criticsâ?? reaction to the alleged â??shrinkingâ? of BoM geography is that it only started happening once critics began pointing out problems with the so-called â??hemisphericâ? geography which they claim was the only orthodox view during the first century or more after the appearance of the Book of Mormon. Roper plainly demonstrates that this is not true. And if it is not true, then â?? at the very least â?? it demonstrates that faithful LDS have been able to detect, from the very beginning, the â??hintsâ? of â??othersâ? in the book, as well as the quite apparently limited geographic scope of the story contained in its text.

[Ipso Facto]

When you say "us", just who do you mean?

Us = Modern Israel.

Ancient Israel and Modern Israel.

The similarities I see -- and therefore the reason the Book of Mormon so appropriately applies its lessons to us -- are on the spiritual level, and have to do with our respective reactions to the cultural dynamics that exist in an era when the Lord has entrusted a dispensation of the gospel to a smaller people contained with a larger (and gospel-antagonistic) culture. Thus the Israelites in ancient Egypt and Babylon, or the Christian-era Israelites of the Roman era. Also the Book of Mormon Israelite elements within their larger, cosmopolitan, and gospel-antagonistic culture.

[The Dude]

I find your so-called â??rebuttalâ? of this particular argument vapid and unpersuasive in its arrogant dismissiveness.

Me vapid and arrogantly dismissive? Don't hold your breath for me to perform more analysis for YOU, if you won't even engage my post. You start out saying the critics are cowards and won't engage this fabulous work by Matt Roper, and then when I start on it you reply with this vapid dismissal. What a blowhard you are, IP.

It is a fact that the three elements I listed, which are critical to Sorenson's interpretation, are not to be found in the text of Jacob 7. That is a fact. Prove me wrong, buddy.

[Bender]

Ipso Facto

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.

LOL who is showing their bias here. I would say your assessment is just about opposite of reality. Believers are generally more biased when viewing or analyzing evidence in regards to strongly held beliefs. Also unbelievers who make conclusions even before even looking at the evidence can also have just as strong bias when evaluating the same evidence. A third group would consist of those who probably still hold some bias, but don't have strongly held beliefs either way. I think also those with strong bias can recognize those biases and attempt the negate them as much as possible.

Brant,

The problem I see in regards to reading into the text that it mentions others is not that some parts can't be read that way, but that so far not enough evidence for why you read it that way is being presented so one can definitively conclude your reading is correct. Certainly this reading comes from both the perspective of the BoM being an ancient document, as well as the perspective that the scientific evidence to date leaves little doubt that others must have been present. For myself I tend to read it more as a 19th century creation, but can still evaluate it from the perspective of an ancient document. It might be harder to, If I hadn't spent most of my life reading it from the perspective of the Book is true and ancient.

[Calm]

Nevertheless, you have extracted one minor point in Roperâ??s paper. And in so doing you apparently hope to convince those following along that the paper merits little of your â??precious time on the easy stuff.â?

Thus the advantage of "dealing with specifics".

[Calm]

Us = Modern Israel.

Ancient Israel and Modern Israel.

The similarities I see -- and therefore the reason the Book of Mormon so appropriately applies its lessons to us -- are on the spiritual level, and have to do with our respective reactions to the cultural dynamics that exist in an era when the Lord has entrusted a dispensation of the gospel to a smaller people contained with a larger (and gospel-antagonistic) culture. Thus the Israelites in ancient Egypt and Babylon, or the Christian-era Israelites of the Roman era. Also the Book of Mormon Israelite elements within their larger, cosmopolitan, and gospel-antagonistic culture.

Okay, I get this and agree that there will be consistent similarities due to what the Covenant Relationship entails not only for specific groups, but over time (for example, while not identical, one can compare certain aspects of how the kosher law affected group dynamics with outsiders much like the WoW does today).

I was thinking of something different when I first read your comment.

[Bender]

Ipso Facto Posted Today, 02:57 PM

One of the major elements in the modern criticsâ?? reaction to the alleged â??shrinkingâ? of BoM geography is that it only started happening once critics began pointing out problems with the so-called â??hemisphericâ? geography which they claim was the only orthodox view during the first century or more after the appearance of the Book of Mormon. Roper plainly demonstrates that this is not true. And if it is not true, then â?? at the very least â?? it demonstrates that faithful LDS have been able to detect, from the very beginning, the â??hintsâ? of â??othersâ? in the book, as well as the quite apparently limited geographic scope of the story contained in its text.

The criticisms usually came from the scientific understanding of the day. The idea that people migrated from Asia before BoM times was around during the 1800's. That some members would except this does not surprise me, but I haven't seen any who came to a conclusion that others are mentioned in the text that were not aware the idea that people migrated from Asia before the Jaridites. if you believe in a young earth there is really no reason to read others into the text. With a better understanding of Science one usually excepts that the BoM peoples could not have been the only ones here.

[Mudcat]

Or maybe this one, replete with Mayan arches and other typical Mayan architectural features. Who knew that Arnold Friberg was at the vanguard of modern LDS apologetics?

I dunno that I would associate him as at vanguard of LDS apologetics.

Captain Moroni is depicted as a rather Romanesque character, replete with armor and so forth, not to mention the Viking/Roman helm in Mormon Farewell. I think this another example of the beauty or bias being in the eye of the beholder.

[Anijen]

I dunno that I would associate him as at vanguard of LDS apologetics.

Captain Moroni is depicted as a rather Romanesque character, replete with armor and so forth, not to mention the Viking/Roman helm in Mormon Farewell. I think this another example of the beauty or bias being in the eye of the beholder.

I prefer these ones;