How Shall we Read the Book of Mormon?

[Chris Smith]

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

I thought it was persuasive enough.

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.

I seem to recall some quotations from an early publication by John Taylor that Sorenson claimed supported a limited Tehuantepec geography which, upon closer examination, turned out to say no such thing except in Sorenson's wishful reading of them. Is that what you're referring to, or does Roper cite other evidence to the same effect?

[Brant Gardner]

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."

This one is almost a-contextual. If it is read against any kind of backdrop, it is one of faith without connection to time and place. I believe that there are many who read the Bible with a similar a-contextual reading (both Restorationists and traditional Christians).

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 necessarily reads the text against history. However, you have two divisions in this approach, one which reads the text against an ancient background and one which reads it against a 19th century background.

[Brant Gardner]

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.

Let's pull a more relevant issue from this "plain reading." Is there more than one chair in the room? Does "the chair" indicate uniqueness or simply the particular out of the unstated many?

[Brant Gardner]

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).

The problem that I see is that if we read the text against fundamentally opposed interpretive frameworks, there is no way to assess the evidence. If I provide a reading that supports "others" based on a text nuanced through a historical framework and you re-read the same text against a framework of a 19th century fabrication--or even a tradition a-contextual, a-historical reading, then how do we assess the value of the evidence?Without some way to assess the value of the interpretive frameworks, we get nowhere except back to where we respectively started.

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 can't imagine any generalization being worth much. I can report my experience with scholarly analysis and the ways in which the rigors of that kind of examination have required a reformulation of belief--certainly not a maintenance of the a priori belief.

[Ipso Facto]

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.

Reading comprehension is increasingly becoming a lost art.

My actual statement was:

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

Your rebuttal, rather than you yourself, I characterized as "vapid and unpersuasive."

I also detected within your "vapid and unpersuasive" rebuttal a strong hint of "arrogant dismissiveness." Even so, the "arrogant dismissiveness" was a modifier to the "rebuttal," not to the man. Therefore, by definition, my comments do not constitute the logical fallacy of ad hominem.

I also don't recall ever characterizing "the critics" as "cowards." Perhaps you could point out where I committed that grievous wrong.

You, on the other hand, and with a term I don't recall ever being applied to myself in all my many and often wicked days, claim that I am a "blowhard." Well, so be it.

As for your particular interpretation of the Sherem episode, I am quite confident that you do not appreciate how little your different interpretation fails to address the argument I have made.

You see, my point (as I attempted to emphasize earlier) is not so much that the text unambiguously makes mention of "others", but rather that students and readers of the Book of Mormon have believed it to mention "others" from the earliest days of the restoration. This is the important thing to remember. Of course, different people will necessarily have different viewpoints when it comes to the text. That is to be expected. Nevertheless, faithful readers of the Book of Mormon have detected within its text, from the very beginning (and increasingly so in the past 100 years) the presence of "others". They have determined, on the basis of the text alone, that it tells a story that occurs largely in an extremely limited geographic area. This is the pertinent fact. And it is the fact that Roper documents. That critics will refuse, or even sincerely differ, in their interpretation of the text, is both to be expected and ignored as largely irrelevant. The only thing that really matters is that believing students of the book have always seen in its text the things that, according to the critics, are but recent innovations to Book of Mormon scholarship.

[Brant Gardner]

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.

That is a legitimate criticism. Unfortunately, the boards are a bit prohibitive for really complex arguments. Right now those arguments in their fuller context are buried in 6 volumes of commentary, should you be interested in following the larger versions of the arguments.

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.

It also comes from comparative literature where other types of documents from similar ancient cultures behave in similar ways. If there were a proposal for the Book of Mormon that required that it be the only time humanity ever wrote in such a way, it would be an inherently weak argument.

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.

If you are going to seriously study the historicity of the Book of Mormon, you cannot ignore either hypothesis. There are readings of the text that can be given which support either hypothesis (and there are plenty of published books which take one position or the other and expound that particular reading). However, the best hypothesis must be the one that accounts for the largest amount of material. One of the problems that I see with the 19th century background as an interpretive context is that it so heavily relies upon Joseph Smith's (or in some cases, a conspirator or conspirators) imagination, an imagination which at times is very good and mirrors some kind of plausible reality, but other times is obviously naive and divorced from reality. It becomes an explanation of convenience where different theories must stand behind different sections of the Book of Mormon.

On the other hand, I believe that the "translated historical text" hypothesis provides a rather consistent explanatory framework for virtually all of the features of the text.

[charity]

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.

Not to mention that he is riding a horse among the 2,000 stripling warriors.

[Cold Steel]

The problem that I see is that if we read the text against fundamentally opposed interpretive frameworks, there is no way to assess the evidence. If I provide a reading that supports "others" based on a text nuanced through a historical framework and you re-read the same text against a framework of a 19th century fabricationâ??or even a tradition a-contextual, a-historical reading, then how do we assess the value of the evidence?

And this is the point.

Remember that little verse in the Book of Mormon (Alma 7:10) which reads: "And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel..."? That's a good example, I think, of what you're talking about. Contextually, we turned the issue on the head after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other writings. We also wrestle with the question of whether Mary was a virgin and, if so, what kind of a virgin was she?

[Bender]

Brant Gardner Posted Today, 08:13 PM

It also comes from comparative literature where other types of documents from similar ancient cultures behave in similar ways. If there were a proposal for the Book of Mormon that required that it be the only time humanity ever wrote in such a way, it would be an inherently weak argument.

I can understand other cultures have a tendency to exclude talking about others to some extent, but they are usually included in their stories which may describe battles with their enemies and the like. Most information may not be accurate due to a culture biases. With the BoM you only have the Lamanites mentioned, which so far from the text only include groups originating from the Mulekites or Lehi's group. If their are others who are part of the lamanite or nephite groups they obviously forgot to mention them, seems a little odd that Nephi being a prophet might want or be called to do missionary work, and that he viewed them so low as to not even warrant mentioning who they meet and then intermingled with.

If you are going to seriously study the historicity of the Book of Mormon, you cannot ignore either hypothesis.

I agree

On the other hand, I believe that the "translated historical text" hypothesis provides a rather consistent explanatory framework for virtually all of the features of the text.

Can't say I agree with that but oh well, not a problem for me. I think there is a good possibility that those who have concluded one way or the other before evaluating the information tend to see what they want to, even though they may be well educated and even an expert in the field. I know of PhD in geology who thinks the evidence supports a 6000 old earth.

[Mudcat]

Not to mention that he is riding a horse among the 2,000 stripling warriors.

Yeah, I noticed that. Not to mention that the stripling sons looked a lot like Indians.

But then again, my concept of what Indians should look like, is spawned from oldies westerns.... Tonto, comes to mind.

[Brant Gardner]

I can understand other cultures have a tendency to exclude talking about others to some extent, but they are usually included in their stories which may describe battles with their enemies and the like. Most information may not be accurate due to a culture biases.

In the Popol Vuh there is a very clear time when scholars know that the Quiche are speaking of the Teotihuacanos. The problem is, they are only called "the western lords." How do you know that "the western lords" are Teotihuacanos if the text doesn't specifically say that?

[Bender]

Brant Gardner Posted Today, 09:00 PM

In the Popol Vuh there is a very clear time when scholars know that the Quiche are speaking of the Teotihuacanos. The problem is, they are only called "the western lords." How do you know that "the western lords" are Teotihuacanos if the text doesn't specifically say that?

I'm not familiar with that nor do I claim to be an expert in this area. All I'm asking is if the BoM does not explicitly mention others, what is your evidence for why you think the text mentions others. So far I haven't seen any, other than a possible motivation based on belief by some to read that into the text.

[Ipso Facto]

I'm not familiar with that nor do I claim to be an expert in this area. All I'm asking is if the BoM does not explicitly mention others, what is your evidence for why you think the text mentions others. So far I haven't seen any, other than a possible motivation based on belief by some to read that into the text.

The text does explicitly mention others. They are called Lamanites. Where it gets interesting is in the study of the many different ways these "Lamanites" are constructed in the text. If one assumes, if even for a moment, that we are dealing with an ancient lineage record, one must ask how the creator of such a record would most likely go about making reference to those outside his cultural group. A study of the ways other ancient people constructed their "national" identity and its stories would be very instructive in this endeavor. And when one compares the Book of Mormon to other ancient texts, one finds many points of similarity in the manner of their construction. The way they reference those outside their group is, more often than not, to lump them into a single descriptor of undesirableness, whether it be "Gentile" or "heathen" or whatever. The Romans call all kinds of different "others" the same thing: barbarians. In the case of the Nephites, "Lamanite" is the chosen pejorative. It ends up applying to even former Nephites who have chosen to join the "others."

Alas, there is (as Brant notes above) little hope of pursuing this discussion given the diametrically opposed starting points from which the interlocutors respectively depart.

[Bender]

Ipso Facto Posted Today, 09:46 PM

The text does explicitly mention others. They are called Lamanites. Where it gets interesting is in the study of the many different ways these "Lamanites" are constructed in the text. If one assumes, if even for a moment, that we are dealing with an ancient lineage record, one must ask how the creator of such a record would most likely go about making reference to those outside his cultural group. A study of the ways other ancient people constructed their "national" identity and its stories would be very instructive in this endeavor. And when one compares the Book of Mormon to other ancient texts, one finds many points of similarity in the manner of their construction. The way they reference those outside their group is, more often than not, to lump them into a single descriptor of undesirableness, whether it be "Gentile" or "heathen" or whatever. The Romans call all kinds of different "others" the same thing: barbarians. In the case of the Nephites, "Lamanite" is the chosen pejorative. It ends up applying to even former Nephites who have chosen to join the "others."

Like I said it is a possible way of reading the text, but we must also determine whether the similarities are significant and not due to bias that may allow us to look high and low for anything that will support a strong held beliefs. Something that seems to happen to much, and even I'm not immune to it.

Alas, there is (as Brant notes above) little hope of pursuing this discussion given the diametrically opposed starting points from which the interlocutors respectively depart.

We generally don't like to admit when were wrong, so coming to any real agreement can be very difficult. On this issue and other ones I'm game to look at what evidence there is. I would note that my involvement in this issue was to point out that we don't have good evidence from the text of others, which does now seem to be some agreement on that.

[Brant Gardner]

We generally don't like to admit when were wrong, so coming to any real agreement can be very difficult. On this issue and other ones I'm game to look at what evidence there is. I would note that my involvement in this issue was to point out that we don't have good evidence from the text of others, which does now seem to be some agreement on that.

And therefore one of the most important questions is why we might expect explicit mention of others?

Nephi, according to the record, wrote two different works. The first is a political/regnal history and the second was one that was explicitly written to be different from that. The first work served as Mormon's source for his writing and we only saw it briefly in the 116 pages and through Mormon's redaction.

Was there reason to mention "others" in Nephi's original source. Quite plausibly. Was there reason for Mormon to include that in his summary? Nothing suggests that it was. From the standpoint of about 1000 years later, it was rather a moot point and one which undoubtedly Mormon would have assumed as base knowledge rather than something that he needed to include.

Was there reason to mention "others" in Nephi's record that we do have? Actually, there is very good reason not to. Nephi's text is ethnogenopoetic. It creates a new people with a new identity. Here is a description of how those texts were generated:

Following Hedwig Wolframâ??s (1990, 30-31) definition, the process of ethnogenesis that forms the core ideology of a group often comprises three characteristic features: (1) a story of stories of a primordial deep, which can include the crossing of a sea or river, an impressive victory against all odds over an enemy, or combinations of similar â??miraculousâ? stores (e.g. , the exodus); (2) a group that undergoes a religious experience or change in cult as a result of the primordial deed (e.g. reception of the Ten Commandments and worship of Yahweh); and (3) the existence of an ancestral enemy or enemies that cement group cohesion (e.g., most notably the Canaanites and Philistines). These basic elements form the key themes in the biblical narrative about the mergence of early Israel.

(Ann E. Killebrew, Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early israel, 1300-11-- B.C.E., 2005, 149

Nephi was in the position of creating a new ethnic identity in a new world. The construction of 1 Nephi fits the requirements for a traditional ethnogenetic document. The particular indication of Lamanites as enemies specifically fills (and creates) the requirements of element (3) above.

So the answer to the question of whether or not we should expect explicit mention of others actually should be "no." When you combine the ethnogenetic definition of the "ancestral" foe as "Lamanite" with the designation of polities by city, you do have explicit others in the Book of Mormon, but not named in such a way as you recognize them if you assume that you will find national identifiers.

The next question would be whether or not the text itself shows indications of "others" without explicitly mentioning them. In this case, the clear answer is yes--if you assume an ancient text that came from a high context culture (one whose writings presume high knowledge of the cultural context). What is known of human populations, the amount of resources required to build cities, the types of interactions noted early in the text, all tell us that the events of the text could not have occurred in the real world without "others."

This leaves the "there are no others" position with two problematic positions. 1) It must be posited that there is an explicit lack of mention and that the very lack is evidence of absence of "others." 2) It must be posited that all of the features of the text that require the presence of others stem not from the reality of human effort (and comparable historical situations) but from inept authorial effort on Joseph's part--who wanted to have an empty land but was so poor an author that he couldn't actually write it that way.

I think both of those positions are incredibly weak. I can't see any other argument against "others." Can you?

[Bender]

Brant Gardner Posted Today, 06:32 AM

And therefore one of the most important questions is why we might expect explicit mention of others?

So far a number of people in this thread like Cinepro have provided some good one.

Was there reason to mention "others" in Nephi's original source. Quite plausibly. Was there reason for Mormon to include that in his summary? Nothing suggests that it was.

I don't think you have made a good case here. Mormon does include information on what they did find, but no others are mentioned. He also includes other statement that on the surface seem to support no one being here (2Nephi 1). Now that's a lot more explicit then anything mentioning others. I would suggest this chapter is the Achilles heel of others being mentioned in the text.

Was there reason to mention "others" in Nephi's record that we do have? Actually, there is very good reason not to. Nephi's text is ethnogenopoetic. It creates a new people with a new identity. Here is a description of how those texts were generated:

I find it interesting that he is using Israel and the bible as part of this description. What we find is that Israel does seem to have a name for anyone who is not one of them (Gentile) as was used in the BoM, and the BoM does come up with Lamanite term for others. What we see though is the Bible being very specific at times about mentioning others. When Israel makes it's journey to the Promised land, they do find people there, and they don't fail to mention them. In fact many of the stories we get involve these others groups and Israel great victory's and such. This is not the case in the BoM. No mention of others, and when they do get more specific about say who the lamanites are, they only mention people belonging to one of two groups from the Old world.

So the answer to the question of whether or not we should expect explicit mention of others actually should be "no." When you combine the ethnogenetic definition of the "ancestral" foe as "Lamanite" with the designation of polities by city, you do have explicit others in the Book of Mormon, but not named in such a way as you recognize them if you assume that you will find national identifiers.

Actually I would say yes, even using your example of ethnogenetic. You see Israel had no trouble being more specific on many occasions. Even the BoM gets more specific on Lamanite as I stated above.

The next question would be whether or not the text itself shows indications of "others" without explicitly mentioning them. In this case, the clear answer is yes--if you assume an ancient text that came from a high context culture (one whose writings presume high knowledge of the cultural context). What is known of human populations, the amount of resources required to build cities, the types of interactions noted early in the text, all tell us that the events of the text could not have occurred in the real world without "others."

This leaves the "there are no others" position with two problematic positions. 1) It must be posited that there is an explicit lack of mention and that the very lack is evidence of absence of "others." 2) It must be posited that all of the features of the text that require the presence of others stem not from the reality of human effort (and comparable historical situations) but from inept authorial effort on Joseph's part--who wanted to have an empty land but was so poor an author that he couldn't actually write it that way.

I think both of those positions are incredibly weak. I can't see any other argument against "others." Can you?

I think you are seeing what you want. Yes this text cannot work in reality based on what we know from the scientific community, and this remains a big problem for the BoM. Your two problematic positions are not the only possibilities. Your trying to limit it to two possibilities with #2 being set up in a way that says Joseph and others couldn't be that stupid. He or others may have been poor authors, or maybe just lacked understanding of some of the realities of life.

There are at least two more possibilities.

1. The earth is in reality 6,000 years old with a group of 8 people a little over 4,000 years ago repopulating the entire world. This one means no one could be in the Americas and the Jaridites coming a couple of hundred years after would find themselves the only group there. This possibility seems to show a lack of understanding on how populations grow and a number of other things, but a number of members today still believe this one.

2. The BoM is 19th century fiction in which the authors believed #1 above represents reality. I find the BoM fits quite well from this view point, but who knows, It could very well be wrong.

In the end I don't think you have shown good evidence yet, only that you believe the BoM to be true as well as excepting the findings of the scientific community, and this issue of others is only one of many issues the BoM faces when viewing it as an ancient document and excepting the science of the day. I do see how one can read others into the text, but I still don't know anyone from Josephs day to now that got that reading while having no idea that others had already migrated from the Old world before the BoM time frame or understanding some of the other problems like population growth. if there was this would be better evidence of others being mentioned in the text.

[Brant Gardner]

I don't think you have made a good case here. Mormon does include information on what they did find, but no others are mentioned.

You have the authors of the text a little mixed up. Mormon doesn't include anything on what they found when they arrived. We don't have anything from Mormon until Mosiah (and, of course Words of Mormon). We do have Nephi, and he provides the barest of information on what they found. The finding of ore leads directly to his making plates, therefore it is relevant. In the document he provides, there is reason not to distinguish, and nothing to suggest why he would--save that we think he should have. That is a particularly weak way to assess antiquity. It simply cannot define an ancient document if the definition is that it doesn't do what a modern document would.

He also includes other statement that on the surface seem to support no one being here (2Nephi 1).

Which is why understanding how texts are to be read becomes critically important.

Now that's a lot more explicit then anything mentioning others. I would suggest this chapter is the Achilles heel of others being mentioned in the text.

Except that it is dependent upon a particular reading that is anachronous with the timeframe in which the text says it was written. You are taking a modern perspective and applying it to the text and therefore assuming that it can't be historical because of your reading. That isn't the text, that is your interpretation of the text.

I find it interesting that he is using Israel and the bible as part of this description. What we find is that Israel does seem to have a name for anyone who is not one of them (Gentile) as was used in the BoM, and the BoM does come up with Lamanite term for others. What we see though is the Bible being very specific at times about mentioning others.

You seem to have missed entirely the problem of the difference in culture areas. There were nations that used a nation-designator in the Ancient Near East. In the New World, there were no such states and there were no such nations. The analogue to the New World is Greece. While one might speak of the "Greeks," there was no real entity that was "Greek," but there were Spartans and Athenians, both of whom considered themselves very separate from the other city.

When you look for something that cannot possibly be there, and don't find it--of what is that evidence?

When Israel makes it's journey to the Promised land, they do find people there, and they don't fail to mention them.

Interesting that you would make that analogy. The Exodus story becomes one of ethnogenesis, and the "others" are Canaanites, even though there are other people in the land. They become subsumed under that generic term, even though technically incorrect because it blurred the presence of non-Canaanite cities in the conquered area.

Actually I would say yes, even using your example of ethnogenetic. You see Israel had no trouble being more specific on many occasions.

Two problems with your statement. First, it is not correct for the ethnogenetic text. You are thinking of other documents. Exodus isn't the entire Bible, nor is 1 Nephi. Secondly, you are still missing the fact that without terms for nations, you get cities--which you do get in the Book of Mormon.

My question remains as to why you think that 1 Nephi ought to mention others. You are strongly suggesting that it should be so. I am suggesting that the very nature of the document and the political situation make it so that your assumption is not correct.

So far, your response has been to repeat that is simply should be there, and that the Bible is different. I agree that the Bible is different, which is why you must be careful in applying that model.

Remember, we have the Popol Vuh who refers to "others" who are accepted to be the Teotihuacanos. Nevertheless, they never name them. They are simply the "western lords." According to your analysis, we should therefore not believe that the Popol Vuh is ancient because the should have mentioned others by name instead of the way they did.

Why, if historians can accept the historicity of a document that speaks of others without naming them can the Book of Mormon not do the same? Upon what principle of history would you make that assumption?

Yes this text cannot work in reality based on what we know from the scientific community, and this remains a big problem for the BoM.

Not at all. It works very will with history, if you read it as a text from antiquity. It is when you make the a priori assumption that it is modern that you cannot use the backdrop of history to assist in the interpretation. At that point, it is declared "not-history" because it doesn't fit modern assumptions. That is not an accepted practice in dealing with any purported ancient text. I see no reason to accept that type of analysis for the Book of Mormon.

Your two problematic positions are not the only possibilities.

That is why I asked you to provide another.

There are at least two more possibilities.

1. The earth is in reality 6,000 years old with a group of 8 people a little over 4,000 years ago repopulating the entire world. This one means no one could be in the Americas and the Jaridites coming a couple of hundred years after would find themselves the only group there. This possibility seems to show a lack of understanding on how populations grow and a number of other things, but a number of members today still believe this one.

This is simply a restatement of my suggestion for number 2. Joseph simply didn't know enough to write a decent historical text. As you note, this possibility again places the text outside of any history. It suggests that the Book of Mormon cannot be historical if we don't allow it to be read against history. Which has been my point for quite a while.

2. The BoM is 19th century fiction in which the authors believed #1 above represents reality. I find the BoM fits quite well from this view point, but who knows, It could very well be wrong.

This is also a repeat. Joseph was an inept 19th century author who couldn't get his history correct. That is certainly a testable hypothesis, but the hypothesis cannot be tested if it is only tested against a modern assumption of the text rather than positioning the text against antiquity.

If the Book of Mormon describes the world in the same ways that other ancient texts do, and it shows indications of the production culture in the way that it describes the events of the text, does the fact that it doesn't behave like a modern history really become applicable to the analysis?

In the end I don't think you have shown good evidence yet,

Of what? I haven't provided evidence that ancient texts do not always behave the way you think they do? The Popol Vuh really doesn't use "the western lords" instead of the name of their distant overlords? Ancient texts really didn't alter the type of information they gave into patterns, particularly when they were from the Ancient Near East and wanted to create a new people?

only that you believe the BoM to be true as well as excepting the findings of the scientific community,

...and that I find that the text fits into the requirements of an ancient text produced in the New World during the times indicated and particularly in a Mesoamerican location (using the same tools the scientific/historical community would use to make such determinations).

and this issue of others is only one of many issues the BoM faces when viewing it as an ancient document and excepting the science of the day.

Here you misunderstand. I am not saying that the Book of Mormon faces any exception from known ethnohistorical principles at all. I am suggesting that the assumption that there should be mention of others is in contradiction to known ethnohistorical principles.

Let me say it more clearly. You are the one who is suggesting a position that is contrary to the "scientific community." The Book of Mormon actually behaves very much like it ought to, if it is what it says it is.

I do see how one can read others into the text, but I still don't know anyone from Josephs day to now that got that reading

Now you are changing your argument. You have left the text itself and are now arguing about what people in Joseph's day knew and whether it was better than what we know today.

1) I do not accept that in Joseph Smith's day that history, ethnohistory, and archaeology were better than they are today. Therefore, I think we go with what thos disciplines know today, not then.

2) I do not see anything in any scripture that suggests that a prophet fully understands all scriptural texts and that any prophet has an inherently better grasp of history or ethnohistory than those who study.

If you are going to suggest that the people of Joseph's day knew better than we do now, I would love to hear your argument for that.

[Ipso Facto]

... I still don't know anyone from Josephs day to now that got that reading ...

That can only mean that you have failed to read Matt Roper's paper I cited above.

The fact is (and Roper demonstrates it with numerous examples) that many people among the earliest generations of church members saw exactly what more and more people see today: that the text of the Book of Mormon hints frequently of there being "others" in the land of promise when they arrived.

It explicitly informs us of the presence of the Jaredites (who, if we examine the evidence found by the people of King Limhi who searched for Zarahemla, must have persisted until sometime in the 2nd century B.C.) and it also explicitly informs us of the presence of the people of Zarahemla with whom the Nephites joined during that same general time period. There you have at least two quasi-nations referenced by the text. At least one of them was present when Lehi and his party arrived, and then coexisted (albeit perhaps with little contact) with the Nephites/Lamanites/Mulekites for approximately four centuries until their culture was destroyed by internal wars. If we had no references other than these explicit ones, it would be sufficient for our purposes. But there are more. And this is what was recognized by students of the Book of Mormon from the very beginning of the restoration.

Simply put, your assertion quoted above is false.

[Bender]

Brant Gardner

You have the authors of the text a little mixed up. Mormon doesn't include anything on what they found when they arrived.

Mormon was the one who included those words on the plates even though it was Nephi who is the author of them.

If you are going to suggest that the people of Joseph's day knew better than we do now, I would love to hear your argument for that.

Never suggested it. I was asking if you know anyone from Joseph's day to today who read others into the text without understanding why others must have been present. If you can that would suggest that the text could more easily be read that way, not the other way around where one understands others must have been present and so reads the text with that in mind.

You are still at square one. You still have failed to provide good evidence that the text mentions others. I'm fine with the reasons they may not mention others, even though we both can see reasons why ancient cultures do in may cases, but in the BoM case they do not which has been the point all along. Sure maybe some of those city states represent others, but we can't definitively show that from the text. if anything the text in a couple of places suggests otherwise. How would Lehi view what constitutes a nation? I'm sure its not with a modern view, but maybe more as a cultural group.

Should it mention others? What I'm saying is that is a good possibility if there were others, but not an absolute requirement, but again the text doesn't. I think many on this thread have given good reasons why they think it should, but all we know is that it doesn't make specific mention of others.

[Bender]

Ipso Facto Posted Today, 01:55 PM

That can only mean that you have failed to read Matt Roper's paper I cited above.

The fact is (and Roper demonstrates it with numerous examples) that many people among the earliest generations of church members saw exactly what more and more people see today: that the text of the Book of Mormon hints frequently of there being "others" in the land of promise when they arrived.

It explicitly informs us of the presence of the Jaredites (who, if we examine the evidence found by the people of King Limhi who searched for Zarahemla, must have persisted until sometime in the 2nd century B.C.) and it also explicitly informs us of the presence of the people of Zarahemla with whom the Nephites joined during that same general time period. There you have at least two quasi-nations referenced by the text. At least one of them was present when Lehi and his party arrived, and then coexisted (albeit perhaps with little contact) with the Nephites/Lamanites/Mulekites for approximately four centuries until their culture was destroyed by internal wars. If we had no references other than these explicit ones, it would be sufficient for our purposes. But there are more. And this is what was recognized by students of the Book of Mormon from the very beginning of the restoration.

Simply put, your assertion quoted above is false.

LOL Yes it explicitly informs us of Jaridites and Mulekites. I never suggested it didn't. Which students recognized others in the text without knowing from the Scientific community of Native Americans being here long before BoM times. Don't forget to exclude of course the Jaridites and Mulekites, since the text does mention them.

[Olavarria]

I think a helpful start in deciphering what the BoM means nn issues of geography and anthropology is by being honest about the questian: Who wrote the BoM?

Both "anti" and "pro" have an answer to this questian, already answered, when interpreting the text.

1)IF Joseph wrote the BOM THEN his interpretations on geography and anthropology are the interpretations.

If you wanted to know whether Darth Vader fathered anymore children besides Luke and Lea, by possibly cheating on Natalie Portman in Star Wars 2 and 3, then George Lucas would be the one to ask. You wouldn't get an answer one way or the other by watching the Star Wars movies.

2)IF Mormon(a 5th century American prophet) wrote the BoM then Joseph's interpretations on geography and anthropology are nothing more than Joseph's interpretations. After all, the gold plates were buried in the earth for more than a thousand years before Joseph could even pronouce the word "treasure".

Questian: Is any one seriously interested in testing the BoM?

If 23 yearold Maasai Sheep Herder translated an ancient Yuan Dynasty Chinese history book, how would you interpret the book's statements on geography and people?

If the Maasai told you he lost the Chinese original, how would you go about determining whether or not his "Book of Temuchin" was really the translatation of an Yuan Dynasty Chinese history book?

If we were really serious about testing the Book of Temuchin, the first thing we would do is separate the book from it's translator.

We would: 1) see what the text says and 2)compare it to what we know existed in China during the period described in the book.

This is the method we would use if we had the Chinese originals and had proven that MSH's translation was correct. So that seems like the only reasonable and fair test.

We wouldn't say: "Well MSH told me that the Mongol's where the first people in China. I know the Book of Temuchin doesn't say that but a plain reading of the text demands it."

[Ipso Facto]

LOL Yes it explicitly informs us of Jaridites and Mulekites. I never suggested it didn't. Which students recognized others in the text without knowing from the Scientific community of Native Americans being here long before BoM times. Don't forget to exclude of course the Jaridites and Mulekites, since the text does mention them.

Why would we want to exclude from the discussion the explicit references to the Jaredites and Mulekites? The book makes it quite clear that the Jaredites were in the vicinity for more or less 400 years after Lehi arrived. The descendants of Mulek's party were co-existing with the Nephites for over 400 years before elements of both groups joined into one. When the Book of Mormon makes reference (albeit often veiled) of "others", I am satisfied that the "others" thus spoken of may very well have formed part of either the Jaredite or Mulekite polities -- outliers or other bodies of people only loosely affiliated with the powerful central political entities.

Apparently you just don't get it. And, quite obviously, you still have not read the Roper paper. He cites numerous students of the Book of Mormon (general authorities and others), going back into the 19th century, who spoke of the fact that the Book of Mormon people were not alone on this continent, and they often quote the text of the Book of Mormon to substantiate their claims. These people reached this conclusion solely on the basis of the text itself. And why? Because they saw the same evidence that we see: that certain elements of the early Nephite record cannot be reconciled without postulating their having joined with other, non-Lehite, people; that the Jaredites could not have been destroyed until long after Lehi arrived; that the Mulekites were a far more numerous people than the Nephites; and that the "Lamanites" constituted only those "others" who were in close proximity to the Nephite cities. That's three distinct groups of "others" right there. What more do you want?

[Bender]

Ipso Facto Posted Today, 03:22 PM

Apparently you just don't get it.

Apparently you don't read well. I never said to exclude the Jaridites or Mulekites from the discussion. I also never said there was no students surmising about others back in the 1800's. Scientific knowledge that had been accumulated even back then would be enough for some students of the BoM to entertain these ideas. What I was wondering was if anyone read into the text others besides the three groups already explicitly mentioned in the text who was not aware of this scientific knowledge. Another words it would probably need to be one who believed in a young earth and a literal flood, which would preclude anyone before the Jaridites being here. Would they naturally read into the text others outside of the three mentioned.

I have read Roper's article, which still supports that the text is silent on the matter. He does argue correctly just because something is not mentioned does not mean they were not there, just that the BoM does not explicitly mention them, which I believe again is the point.

[Ipso Facto]

Apparently you don't read well. I never said to exclude the Jaridites or Mulekites from the discussion. I also never said there was no students surmising about others back in the 1800's. Scientific knowledge that had been accumulated even back then would be enough for some students of the BoM to entertain these ideas. What I was wondering was if anyone read into the text others besides the three groups already explicitly mentioned in the text who was not aware of this scientific knowledge. Another words it would probably need to be one who believed in a young earth and a literal flood, which would preclude anyone before the Jaridites being here. Would they naturally read into the text others outside of the three mentioned.

I have read Roper's article, which still supports that the text is silent on the matter. He does argue correctly just because something is not mentioned does not mean they were not there, just that the BoM does not explicitly mention them, which I believe again is the point.

No, the point is simply that "others" have always been there and have been detected by students of the Book of Mormon from the very beginning. You're the one that can't seem to grasp the fact that, even if the "others" were never anyone outside the domain of the Jaredites, Mulekites, and "Lamanites", they all provide an affirmative answer to the question of whether or not there were "others." The "others" needn't be anyone outside of those the Book of Mormon denominates as "the people in the land northward ('Jaredites')", the people of Zarahemla, or the "Lamanites". They were all there, contemporary with the Nephites, and all of them would have provided people potentially subject to being absorbed, to one extent or another, into the Nephite culture. End of story. No one need labor too hard to argue, for example, that 2 Nephi 5 speaks of others, or that Sherem is necessarily from the "others", etc. All of those things factor more or less into the equation, but the book does explicitly speak of several "others", giving them names that made sense to the creators of that record. It matters not at all what we moderns call these "others", the Book of Mormon calls them "the people in the land northward", the people of Zarahemla, and otherwise "Lamanites." There are non-Nephites in every direction in the Book of Mormon. And to the Nephites themselves, all that really mattered is that they were not Nephites. (Although many of them -- many of the people of Zarahemla, for example -- are eligible to become Nephites at any given time.)

It's all so simple as to be painful when critics make senseless arguments against the obvious facts ...

[The Dude]

Students of the BoM, including IP's beloved Matt Roper, have missed the real meaning of the text because they labor under a biased Mesoamerican framework. It is painfully obvious, once you assume a Middle Earth framework, than the savage Lamanites are actually orcs and the Jaredites are the civilization of Numenor that was destroyed for its pride. Obviously Joseph Smith didn't write the Book of Mormon or else he would have noticed these details from the beginning -- it's so obvious! As Brant has argued so eloquently, once you assume an interpretive framework, you will find evidence ("text nuances") supporting it. If we can't agree on an interpretive framework we get nowhere except back to where we respectively started. Please first accept my premise that it happened in Middle Earth, else discussion of specific examples will be fruitless.