How Shall we Read the Book of Mormon?

[Chris Smith]

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.

You've convinced me. Baptize me in the waters of Rivendell!

I know Middle Earth is true, I know Middle Earth is true...

[Ipso Facto]

Somewhat predictably, now that the argument has become well-articulated, and thus demanding of nothing less than an well-articulated rebuttal, we get nothing from the critics but vapid and meaningless ridicule. Oh, sure - they couch it in a posture of "this ridiculousness is not even worthy of a serious response ...", but from this point forward, we'll see nothing more substantive from them on this thread.

I'm sure I have better things to do anyway ...

[Bender]

Ipso Facto Posted Today, 05:47 PM It's all so simple as to be painful when critics make senseless arguments against the obvious facts ...

So obvious no one else can see them. So far your just making a rant without providing anything to back it up. I'm aware that apologists surmise that the Lamainites, Jaridites and Nephites all incorporated some people already living in the Americas. But again you don't seem to want to see that the text does not say this explicitly or shall we say directly. Yes you can infer from the text things like they could not have grown into a large civilization in such a short time, etc. Quite a bit of difference then the text actually saying they found people when they arrived and started trading and intermingling with them.

Ipso Facto Posted Today, 07:27 PM Somewhat predictably, now that the argument has become well-articulated, and thus demanding of nothing less than an well-articulated rebuttal, we get nothing from the critics but vapid and meaningless ridicule. Oh, sure - they couch it in a posture of "this ridiculousness is not even worthy of a serious response ...", but from this point forward, we'll see nothing more substantive from them on this thread.I'm sure I have better things to do anyway ...

Nice blanket attack.

[The Dude]

Am I correct in understanding that we cannot go on with the discussion and examine the evidence in the text (the nuances, as they are) unless we critics first adopt, or at least for the sake of argument adopt, a historical limited Mesoamerican POV for reading the BoM? Short of adopting that model -- the very model we oppose! -- we aren't even capable of a well-articulated rebuttal (IP).

Am I clear on what is being asked for in this thread?

And the others?

[Chris Smith]

Somewhat predictably, now that the argument has become well-articulated, and thus demanding of nothing less than an well-articulated rebuttal, we get nothing from the critics but vapid and meaningless ridicule.

I take the subject quite seriously, but I also try to have a sense of humor about it lest it get old. Anyway, I haven't time for substantive contributions at the moment.

[Ipso Facto]

Am I correct in understanding that we cannot go on with the discussion and examine the evidence in the text (the nuances, as they are) unless we critics first adopt, or at least for the sake of argument adopt, a historical limited Mesoamerican POV for reading the BoM? Short of adopting that model -- the very model we oppose! -- we aren't even capable of a well-articulated rebuttal (IP).

Am I clear on what is being asked for in this thread?

And the others?

I think neither you nor Bender are even listening to what Brant and I are saying. You act as though you read the posts, you even quote them in your replies. But then what you have to say in response betrays the fact that you either: a) don't get "it", or b ) insist on ignoring what is said.

Nothing that Brant or I have said on this thread can be construed to compel a submission to "a historical limited Mesoamerican POV for reading the BoM". Of course, it can be undeniably demonstrated that faithful students of the BoM have, for more than a century, perceived a limited Mesoamerican geography for the majority of events in the book. And, it can also be undeniably demonstrated that the Book of Mormon makes explicit mention of "others" of various stripes.

Other than those difficulties, you're free to believe and argue whatever you'd like. It's just that if you continue to deny the things mentioned above, you are facing an insuperable disadvantage in the debate, because the facts are clear on both counts.

From what I have seen, you haven't even attempted to dispute those facts. You've all just tried to shout them down with logic-defying proclamations that "it's not there!"

Well, it is there.

It's demonstrable.

The fact that many students of the book have long perceived the book in that fashion is also demonstrable.

The only counter-argument you have even attempted is to say that you don't agree with Sorenson's interpretation of the Sherem episode. But your failure to interpret the Sherem episode like Sorenson has nothing to do with the fact that many faithful students have long perceived the "others" you claim to not see.

The fact that you have chosen to see the Book of Mormon in a manner that does violence to the text, notwithstanding its being common, is no one's fault but your own. You have chosen (apparently all your life) to adopt a view that was, perhaps, popular in certain circles. It might even still be viewed as orthodox in some people's eyes. But it is simultaneously contra-textual and contra-historical, and its growing rejection is a product, not of the times, but of the text itself.

[Brant Gardner]

Am I correct in understanding that we cannot go on with the discussion and examine the evidence in the text (the nuances, as they are) unless we critics first adopt, or at least for the sake of argument adopt, a historical limited Mesoamerican POV for reading the BoM? Short of adopting that model -- the very model we oppose! -- we aren't even capable of a well-articulated rebuttal (IP).

You are not correct in that understanding.

If a reading depends upon the way the text is contextualized, then we don't communicate when we use the same text to demonstrate different points of view. That gets us nowhere. If I read a text as indicating "others" because I read it against history and ethnohistorical analogy, and you read that same text a-historically and literally, we don't come to any conclusion.

If we are to have any fruitful discussion of how a text should be read, then we need to deal with the issues on that level.

I propose that reading a text that claims ancient production against the proposed antiquity and the ethnohistorical analogy to other texts makes sense.

I would like to hear why reading a text a-historically and literally against a modern assumption has any possibility of determining anything about the historicity of the text.

I enter the KJV translation of the Bible into evidence as a text in English that has anachronisms but yet is a rendition of an ancient text.

I enter the Popol Vuh in evidence as a text that speaks of "others" generically, and who are known only because the text is read against a historical background.

I enter Genesis into evidence as a type of ethnogenetic text following a pattern.

What I am arguing against is the fascinating combination of reading a text a-historically and literally, and then complaining that it doesn't correspond with history. That very reading is inherently contradictory to an ancient text and is therefore circular reasoning.

If you don't establish a useful methodology, there is no chance that you will do anything other than justify your pre-set opinion.

[Bender]

Ipso Facto Posted Today, 09:30 PM

QUOTE(The Dude @ Jan 11 2009, 08:18 PM) *

Am I correct in understanding that we cannot go on with the discussion and examine the evidence in the text (the nuances, as they are) unless we critics first adopt, or at least for the sake of argument adopt, a historical limited Mesoamerican POV for reading the BoM? Short of adopting that model -- the very model we oppose! -- we aren't even capable of a well-articulated rebuttal (IP).

Am I clear on what is being asked for in this thread?

And the others?

I think neither you nor Bender are even listening to what Brant and I are saying. You act as though you read the posts, you even quote them in your replies. But then what you have to say in response betrays the fact that you either: a) don't get "it", or b ) insist on ignoring what is said.

Nothing that Brant or I have said on this thread can be construed to compel a submission to "a historical limited Mesoamerican POV for reading the BoM". Of course, it can be undeniably demonstrated that faithful students of the BoM have, for more than a century, perceived a limited Mesoamerican geography for the majority of events in the book. And, it can also be undeniably demonstrated that the Book of Mormon makes explicit mention of "others" of various stripes.

Other than those difficulties, you're free to believe and argue whatever you'd like. It's just that if you continue to deny the things mentioned above, you are facing an insuperable disadvantage in the debate, because the facts are clear on both counts.

From what I have seen, you haven't even attempted to dispute those facts. You've all just tried to shout them down with logic-defying proclamations that "it's not there!"

Well, it is there.

It's demonstrable.

The fact that many students of the book have long perceived the book in that fashion is also demonstrable.

LOL I'm not sure how you can accuse me of not reading your posts, when it's obvious from this post you have failed to read my own. I have not disagreed that some members from the 1800's on have viewed the BoM in a more limited way than the hemispheric model for reasons I have already laid out.

You have chosen (apparently all your life) to adopt a view that was, perhaps, popular in certain circles. It might even still be viewed as orthodox in some people's eyes. But it is simultaneously contra-textual and contra-historical, and its growing rejection is a product, not of the times, but of the text itself.

Talk about making assumptions of others. Maybe you should try lessening your apparent bias here. I do disagree that changing opinions by members about issues of others, etc is coming from reading the text, but by understanding better the world around us, and how the hemispheric model can not fit with what they understand about reality. This of course has been going on by some even early in the church. When your understanding of the world around you changes, how you read the BoM or any other text one believes is ancient will change as well. Some may reinterpret the BoM or Bible to better fit that understanding, or some may conclude from their understanding that these texts do not reflect reality.

[The Dude]

I propose that reading a text that claims ancient production against the proposed antiquity and the ethnohistorical analogy to other texts makes sense.

Fine. I propose that it doesn't make sense to accept claims of antiquity and move on ahead with ethnohistorical analogy when the claim of antiquity is exactly the issue.

I would like to hear why reading a text a-historically and literally against a modern assumption has any possibility of determining anything about the historicity of the text.

You aren't asking the right question. We want to determine the antiquity of the text before we try and divine what arcana it means in a Mesoamerican, or North American, or Middle Earth reading. If it isn't even an ancient text then you are living in a fantasy world and asking me to join you (and IP) there.

I enter the KJV translation of the Bible into evidence as a text in English that has anachronisms but yet is a rendition of an ancient text.

KJV has has a provenance that the Book of Mormon does not. It isn't perfect but things like the Dead Sea Scrolls assure us that it is ancient. We still wonder if the BoM is ancient, and for good reason. Angels!

I enter the Popol Vuh in evidence as a text that speaks of "others" generically, and who are known only because the text is read against a historical background.

Nobody is questioning if the Popol Vuh is ancient.

I enter Genesis into evidence as a type of ethnogenetic text following a pattern.

Nobody is questioning if Genesis is really, super old.

The first question, before you leap into an elaborate ethnohistorical analogy to understand the text within a certain ancient framework, is to assure yourself and your peers that the text is ancient. Do we doubt that for the KJV? Not really. For the Popol Vuh? No. For Genesis? No. For the Book of Mormon? YES. That is why your analogy approach, your "useful methodology", is not acceptable to this debate, at least not if you mean to interact with critics who do not believe in Joseph Smith's claims.

[Brant Gardner]

Fine. I propose that it doesn't make sense to accept claims of antiquity and move on ahead with ethnohistorical analogy when the claim of antiquity is exactly the issue.

Fine. Except this is precisely the problem. How do you reasonably approach the question of the antiquity of a text? If you suggest that a text with a disputed history can be discovered to be modern without comparing it to the antiquity it presumes, I am interested in that methodology. For example, if you were to assume that the presence of an anachronism in a translated text clearly indicates modernity of the text, we lose the Bible (based on reading the KJV). Obviously, we shouldn't do that. Nevertheless, that is one of the "methods" used to dismiss the Book of Mormon's antiquity if it is read a-historically.

If we are to dismiss either textual antiquity of the ability of an ancient text to discuss actual history based upon supernatural content, we lose the Popol Vuh.

If we suppose that we may use features that appear too modern to dismiss a text as a modern forgery, we lose the Grolier (and in fact, we did for quite a while for that very reason).

What I am suggesting is that arguing specifics without a firm understand of what kind of methodology may be reasonably applied does not lead to anything except a repetition of the original prejudice.

Wouldn't you like to get past that level?

You aren't asking the right question. We want to determine the antiquity of the text before we try and divine what arcana it means in a Mesoamerican, or North American, or Middle Earth reading. If it isn't even an ancient text then you are living in a fantasy world and asking me to join you (and IP) there.

But this is precisely the question. How do you propose that we discover the authentic antiquity of the text? I am saying that the method of reading it a-historically is precisely the wrong way to do that. It isn't the method that would be used for any other disputed historical text. Why is that method only appropriate for the Book of Mormon? Why are the modern tools of history and ethnohistory suddenly less valuable than the assumption that we can prove modernity by only reading the text a-historically?

Are you in favor of the way scholars approach texts, or should we create a new methodology?

KJV has has a provenance that the Book of Mormon does not. It isn't perfect but things like the Dead Sea Scrolls assure us that it is ancient. We still wonder if the BoM is ancient, and for good reason. Angels!

Do I understand you to believe that the Book of Mormon is the only document in the history of the world to have a questionable provenance and claim historicity? If so, please read your history.

Of course the Bible has a provenance and of course we know that the anachronisms in the KJV date to the period of translation, because we have the original language and can see what was in the original. Of course. However, the example tells us that if we are examining a text in translation without provenance, there are legitimate cautions that we have to take before dismissing the text prematurely. This is what happened to the Grolier Codex. It appeared to be drawn in a too-European style. It was declared a forgery. Then the learned to read some glyphs and found out that the Codex made sense. It wasn't a copy of anything and no one knew how to write in glyphs, so it had to be authentic. Nevertheless, it was dismissed for a questionable provenance and an appearance that didn't seem to be correct.

Now, if you are going to suggest that the Book of Mormon be automatically dismissed because of Angels!, then we cannot have a rational discussion about how to determine a text's antiquity, because you are beginning with a premise that does not allow investigation. You cannot test a hypothesis if the hypothesis is the conclusion.

The first question,. . . is to assure yourself and your peers that the text is ancient.

I agree.

Now back to the question of how we do that. Starting with the premise that it cannot be historical doesn't seem to me to be a testable hypothesis. Reading the text a-historically is not an accepted methodology because it leads to supporting the original presumption, not investigating a question.

Therefore, we are back to the starting point. As you note, it is the "first question" to discover the antiquity of the text. In order to do that, we have to know how to read a text when we are attempting to discover its antiquity.

So, I'll call it the "second question." How shall we read the Book of Mormon?

Do we doubt that for the KJV? Not really. For the Popol Vuh? No. For Genesis? No. For the Book of Mormon? YES. That is why your analogy approach, your "useful methodology", is not acceptable to this debate, at least not if you mean to interact with critics who do not believe in Joseph Smith's claims.

Are you saying that there is no way to understand a text to be historical unless you already accept it as historical? Are you really suggesting that the academic world is so shallow that it can only restate its original prejudices?

Pray tell, how might I possibly demonstrate the antiquity of the text if you begin the debate on historicity by declaring that it cannot be historical and therefore every possible methodology that might be applied to test the hypothesis is declared invalid--because you know that it isn't historical?

Could you tell me how I would ever convince any academic peers of that proposal if I were to abstract it and leave out the name of the Book of Mormon?

Nobody is questioning if the Popol Vuh is ancient.

That statement ignores the actual issues involved. The Popol Vuh is known only from a copy made by a Frenchman long after the conquest. It doesn't have an original... just what we have from Brasseur de Bourbourg. Of course, we do have it in Quiche, so that helps, but it is still a document from long after the conquest.

It has a very mythological section. It also relates ancient (long before the conquest) history. The question is whether or not the Popol Vuh can give us any information on history. When it discusses the western lords, the current accepted reading is that it refers to a people who ceased to exist around 600 AD. Since the city isn't named, how do we know that this has any historicity and how can we possibly know to which city the western lords were attached?

Do you determine the value of the historical content of the Popol Vuh by deciding that since it is post Conquest it cannot possibly have history, and therefore discard it? Do you assume that since it doesn't name locations the way you think it should, that it must be modern and not ancient?

No one else has.

Is there a reason why proper methods are effective for every other text by are not only inapplicable but unnecessary to apply to the Book of Mormon because you can make a decision based on the story of the text's provenance alone?

If faith in that provenance is insufficient to declare historicity, shouldn't "unfaith" in that provenance be similarly insufficient?

[Olavarria]

Fine. Except this is precisely the problem. How do you reasonably approach the question of the antiquity of a text? If you suggest that a text with a disputed history can be discovered to be modern without comparing it to the antiquity it presumes, I am interested in that methodology. For example, if you were to assume that the presence of an anachronism in a translated text clearly indicates modernity of the text, we lose the Bible (based on reading the KJV). Obviously, we shouldn't do that. Nevertheless, that is one of the "methods" used to dismiss the Book of Mormon's antiquity if it is read a-historically.

If we are to dismiss either textual antiquity of the ability of an ancient text to discuss actual history based upon supernatural content, we lose the Popol Vuh.

If we suppose that we may use features that appear too modern to dismiss a text as a modern forgery, we lose the Grolier (and in fact, we did for quite a while for that very reason).

What I am suggesting is that arguing specifics without a firm understand of what kind of methodology may be reasonably applied does not lead to anything except a repetition of the original prejudice.

Wouldn't you like to get past that level?

But this is precisely the question. How do you propose that we discover the authentic antiquity of the text? I am saying that the method of reading it a-historically is precisely the wrong way to do that. It isn't the method that would be used for any other disputed historical text. Why is that method only appropriate for the Book of Mormon? Why are the modern tools of history and ethnohistory suddenly less valuable than the assumption that we can prove modernity by only reading the text a-historically?

Are you in favor of the way scholars approach texts, or should we create a new methodology?

Do I understand you to believe that the Book of Mormon is the only document in the history of the world to have a questionable provenance and claim historicity? If so, please read your history.

Of course the Bible has a provenance and of course we know that the anachronisms in the KJV date to the period of translation, because we have the original language and can see what was in the original. Of course. However, the example tells us that if we are examining a text in translation without provenance, there are legitimate cautions that we have to take before dismissing the text prematurely. This is what happened to the Grolier Codex. It appeared to be drawn in a too-European style. It was declared a forgery. Then the learned to read some glyphs and found out that the Codex made sense. It wasn't a copy of anything and no one knew how to write in glyphs, so it had to be authentic. Nevertheless, it was dismissed for a questionable provenance and an appearance that didn't seem to be correct.

Now, if you are going to suggest that the Book of Mormon be automatically dismissed because of Angels!, then we cannot have a rational discussion about how to determine a text's antiquity, because you are beginning with a premise that does not allow investigation. You cannot test a hypothesis if the hypothesis is the conclusion.

I agree.

Now back to the question of how we do that. Starting with the premise that it cannot be historical doesn't seem to me to be a testable hypothesis. Reading the text a-historically is not an accepted methodology because it leads to supporting the original presumption, not investigating a question.

Therefore, we are back to the starting point. As you note, it is the "first question" to discover the antiquity of the text. In order to do that, we have to know how to read a text when we are attempting to discover its antiquity.

So, I'll call it the "second question." How shall we read the Book of Mormon?

Are you saying that there is no way to understand a text to be historical unless you already accept it as historical? Are you really suggesting that the academic world is so shallow that it can only restate its original prejudices?

Pray tell, how might I possibly demonstrate the antiquity of the text if you begin the debate on historicity by declaring that it cannot be historical and therefore every possible methodology that might be applied to test the hypothesis is declared invalid--because you know that it isn't historical?

Could you tell me how I would ever convince any academic peers of that proposal if I were to abstract it and leave out the name of the Book of Mormon?

That statement ignores the actual issues involved. The Popol Vuh is known only from a copy made by a Frenchman long after the conquest. It doesn't have an original... just what we have from Brasseur de Bourbourg. Of course, we do have it in Quiche, so that helps, but it is still a document from long after the conquest.

It has a very mythological section. It also relates ancient (long before the conquest) history. The question is whether or not the Popol Vuh can give us any information on history. When it discusses the western lords, the current accepted reading is that it refers to a people who ceased to exist around 600 AD. Since the city isn't named, how do we know that this has any historicity and how can we possibly know to which city the western lords were attached?

Do you determine the value of the historical content of the Popol Vuh by deciding that since it is post Conquest it cannot possibly have history, and therefore discard it? Do you assume that since it doesn't name locations the way you think it should, that it must be modern and not ancient?

No one else has.

Is there a reason why proper methods are effective for every other text by are not only inapplicable but unnecessary to apply to the Book of Mormon because you can make a decision based on the story of the text's provenance alone?

If faith in that provenance is insufficient to declare historicity, shouldn't "unfaith" in that provenance be similarly insufficient?

Here is a sports based anaology/parable to what I think you are saying:

Or....maybe not

[Ipso Facto]

Brant:

Are you saying that there is no way to understand a text to be historical unless you already accept it as historical? Are you really suggesting that the academic world is so shallow that it can only restate its original prejudices?

Pray tell, how might I possibly demonstrate the antiquity of the text if you begin the debate on historicity by declaring that it cannot be historical and therefore every possible methodology that might be applied to test the hypothesis is declared invalid--because you know that it isn't historical?

Could you tell me how I would ever convince any academic peers of that proposal if I were to abstract it and leave out the name of the Book of Mormon?

This, of course, underscores the entire problem in dealing with LDS apostates who hide behind the more innocuous title of â??criticsâ?.

They have irreversably convinced themselves that Joseph Smith (and his entire literary production) is a fraud. And they have been hurt deeply by that revelation. Their faith was betrayed; their confidence and innocence was trampled on. It has therefore become personal, in a very profound way.

They simply cannot suppress those strong feelings in order to dispassionately consider questions like those you propose.

In their eyes, you are nothing more than this comical character who uses scholarly terminology to, in all seriousness, describe your studies of the missions of the starship Enterprise and what we in the 21st century can learn from the resolution of the Terran/Klingon dispute in order to become closer friends with the Russians. Oh, sure, they will play along with you for awhile as you soberly chronicle the exploits of Jean-Luc Picard and his crew, all the while snickering barely under their breath and exchanging incredulous glances with each other as you proceed.

Does this mean any dialogue with them is entirely futile? To tell you the truth, Iâ??m not sure. Iâ??m convinced that is not even possible for them to take the exercise seriously, let alone to ever change their minds. That is simply not going to happen. Is it nevertheless valuable to carry on the public conversation for the benefit of those looking on? Perhaps. In fact, that can be the only possible positive consequence of carrying on conversations like these. Is that why you keep it up? I know Iâ??ve only been playing this game for a few months, and already I find myself growing weary of these kinds of discussions.

[JeffM]

For example, if you were to assume that the presence of an anachronism in a translated text clearly indicates modernity of the text, we lose the Bible (based on reading the KJV). Obviously, we shouldn't do that. Nevertheless, that is one of the "methods" used to dismiss the Book of Mormon's antiquity if it is read a-historically.

This reasoning is incredibly naive (or deceptive, I'm not sure which). It seems to imply that all anachronisms carry equal force. The fact is, the anachronisms in the Book of Mormon are orders of magnitude above anything you will find in the King James Version of the Bible. The King James Bible does not quote verbatim from books that haven't been written yet. But even if it did, the underlying Greek manuscripts would show those quotes to be a complete distortion of the underlying text - not a translation - because the underlying text could not contain such a thing.

The kind of anachronisms we find in the King James Bible are words like "Easter" instead of "Passover", etc. Such anachronisms are a far cry from quoting future books and concepts. But even these less severe anachronisms show we are dealing with a text that has been compromised in some way. If it weren't for the wealth of underlying Greek texts that provide a corrective, we wouldn't know how far that compromise went.

The situation with the Book of Mormon is far worse. There is not only a continued onslaught of quotes from future texts and references to future ideas, but also no underlying original text to compare against. We have either a fabrication or a text filled with distortions. Take your pick.

[Nomad]

This reasoning is incredibly naive (or deceptive, I'm not sure which). It seems to imply that all anachronisms carry equal force. The fact is, the anachronisms in the Book of Mormon are orders of magnitude above anything you will find in the King James Version of the Bible. The King James Bible does not quote verbatim from books that haven't been written yet. But even if it did, the underlying Greek manuscripts would show those quotes to be a complete distortion of the underlying text - not a translation - because the underlying text could not contain such a thing.

The kind of anachronisms we find in the King James Bible are words like "Easter" instead of "Passover", etc. Such anachronisms are a far cry from quoting future books and concepts. But even these less severe anachronisms show we are dealing with a text that has been compromised in some way. If it weren't for the wealth of underlying Greek texts that provide a corrective, we wouldn't know how far that compromise went.

The situation with the Book of Mormon is far worse. There is not only a continued onslaught of quotes from future texts and references to future ideas, but also no underlying original text to compare against. We have either a fabrication or a text filled with distortions. Take your pick.

I don't want to derail the present thread, and I won't pursue the discussion your post attempts to initiate, but to my knowledge, every single one of the alleged anachronisms in the Book of Mormon is disputed. In fact, the number of alleged anachronisms from fifty years ago has shrunken from year to year until now there is only a fraction remaining from the original list. It has become increasingly obvious to me that alleged anachronisms in the Book of Mormon are almost always an issue of what we didn't used to know, or what we currently don't know, rather than evidence of what Joseph Smith did not know.

OK, now I'll check out and return to observing this thread instead of participating in it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Fine. Except this is precisely the problem. How do you reasonably approach ...

If faith in that provenance is insufficient to declare historicity, shouldn't "unfaith" in that provenance be similarly insufficient?

Brilliantly done. This will be turning into a blog post in the next week or so.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Does this mean any dialogue with them is entirely futile? To tell you the truth, Iâ??m not sure. Iâ??m convinced that is not even possible for them to take the exercise seriously, let alone to ever change their minds. That is simply not going to happen. Is it nevertheless valuable to carry on the public conversation for the benefit of those looking on? Perhaps. In fact, that can be the only possible positive consequence of carrying on conversations like these. Is that why you keep it up? I know Iâ??ve only been playing this game for a few months, and already I find myself growing weary of these kinds of discussions.

There is value in the discussions, sometimes for all participants and sometimes for onlookers. In this case it is very interesting to see a "secularist" so-to-speak debate with Brant.

Brant is approaching the text in the same way he would approach the Bible, the Popol Vuh, and other ancient texts to see how it turns out. The Dude refuses to do so up front, and doesn't seem to understand Brant's points (like when he said "Nobody is questioning if Genesis is really, super old." He entirely missed Brant's point in bringing it up, and in fact, may have strengthened Brant's position with this agreement). It really and quite fascinatingly boiled down to that same old stumbling block. The Dude, with great candor, admitted why the Book of Mormon will not be receiving a fair trial from him and others like him:

The Dude: "KJV has has a provenance that the Book of Mormon does not. It isn't perfect but things like the Dead Sea Scrolls assure us that it is ancient. We still wonder if the BoM is ancient, and for good reason. Angels!"

Excellent.

[Hermes]

This reasoning is incredibly naive (or deceptive, I'm not sure which).

calling a poster "incredibly naive" and implying that gardner is lying just earned you 3 days off. please return with more respect.~hermes

[Gervin]

This, of course, underscores the entire problem in dealing with LDS apostates who hide behind the more innocuous title of â??criticsâ?. <snip>

Even more wearisome are posters who judge the motivation of other posters as a way of avoiding the topic and declaring a superior viewpoint. Since I'm not an apostate-LDS why don't go ahead and judge my motivations while you're at it.

calling a poster "incredibly naive" and implying that gardner is lying just earned you 3 days off. please return with more respect.~hermes

Is there a poster named "reasoning" on this board? JeffM said the reasoninng was naive. I agree with him.

[Gervin]

Pray tell, how might I possibly demonstrate the antiquity of the text if you begin the debate on historicity by declaring that it cannot be historical and therefore every possible methodology that might be applied to test the hypothesis is declared invalid--because you know that it isn't historical?

Could you tell me how I would ever convince any academic peers of that proposal if I were to abstract it and leave out the name of the Book of Mormon?

Pray tell, how has your methodology fared in convincing academic peers? Can we even find your methodology in your published works?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Pray tell, how has your methodology fared in convincing academic peers? Can we even find your methodology in your published works?

He has given a basic description of it in this thread. He also discusses it in his BoM commentary Second Witness.

Further, as for the "academic peers" question, it seems as though you imply Gardner's field is a simply ABC-type exchange where incontrovertible evidence is produced with little to no controversy, thus any reasonable conclusion should be agreed upon by most in the field. As Brant noted above, there are other documents and interpretations (other than the BoM that is) which are also the subject of controversy. Are you looking for a consensus from Mesoamerican scholars on Gardner's work on the Book of Mormon, or even assuming they'd be interested?

[Hermes]

This, of course, underscores the entire problem in dealing with LDS apostates who hide behind the more innocuous title of â??criticsâ?.

keep it clean, ipso.~hermes

[Brant Gardner]

This reasoning is incredibly naive (or deceptive, I'm not sure which).

It certainly wasn't intended to be either. Let's see if we can clarify.

It seems to imply that all anachronisms carry equal force.

No it doesn't. It specifically states that anachronisms that exist in translation do not always exist in the document being translated. Ergo, finding any kind of anachronism in a translation is ambiguous, not conclusive.

Finding an anachronism in an original is pretty much fatal. That is a serious difference.

The fact is, the anachronisms in the Book of Mormon are orders of magnitude above anything you will find in the King James Version of the Bible.

Are you really sure about that? I think you would have a hard time telling the difference between the candle/swaddling clothes anachronisms and some of the items mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

The King James Bible does not quote verbatim from books that haven't been written yet.

Are you sure that the Book of Mormon does? I know that the translation does, but is that the same thing? Is the presence of the model language persuasive to the translator? There are professional Bible translators who say yes.

But even if it did, the underlying Greek manuscripts would show those quotes to be a complete distortion of the underlying text - not a translation - because the underlying text could not contain such a thing.

Of course. Where we have the underlying text we can determine what kinds of things happen in translation. Without the original language (and we do not have it for the Book of Mormon) we cannot know for sure. What we can tell, however, is that the mere presence of any kind of anachronism in a translation is not the same as an anachronism in the original.

The kind of anachronisms we find in the King James Bible are words like "Easter" instead of "Passover", etc. Such anachronisms are a far cry from quoting future books and concepts.

No, they also include candles, which didn't exist (they used oil lamps). There were no swaddling clothes in the manger (those were a later practice).

but also no underlying original text to compare against. We have either a fabrication or a text filled with distortions. Take your pick.

You are surely not suggesting that there are no authentic historical documents that exist only in translation? Surely you know that there are. Therefore, the absence of the original language cannot be determinative of antiquity. If we have only the translation and there is an anachronism in the translation, is it possible that the anachronism is in the translation and doesn't represent the underlying original? The clear evidence is that it could. Therefore, anachronisms in the Book of Mormon are certainly issues to be discussed, but they are not automatic disqualifications of the text's antiquity.

[Brant Gardner]

calling a poster "incredibly naive" and implying that gardner is lying just earned you 3 days off. please return with more respect.~hermes

I hope not for my sake. I didn't mind at all. Probably one of the nicer things I have been called--at least to my face.

[Brant Gardner]

Pray tell, how has your methodology fared in convincing academic peers? Can we even find your methodology in your published works?

Since it is the same methodology I have used in secular articles, I suspect it has fared pretty well. Of course, all methodologies are adapted to the question being asked, but my use of sources and interpretations of them have been accepted by peers.

1989 "Ethnohistory and Linguistics: The Coxoh Problem." With Lyle Campbell. Chapter in Linguistic History and Geography of Southeast Chiapas. New World Archaeological Foundation, Brigham Young University.

1986 "The Aztec `Legend of the Suns': A Multi-Dimensional Approach to the Ethnohistory of Myth." Symbol and Meaning Beyond the Closed Community. Ed. Gary Gossen. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, State University of New York, Albany. pp. 19-34.

1986 "The Christianization of Quetzalcoatl: A History of the Metamorphosis." SUNSTONE vol.10, number 11. pp. 6-10. (maybe not the kind of "peers" you had in mind, but perhaps).

1982 "A Structural and Semantic Analysis of Classical Nahuatl Kinship Terminology." Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl. 15:89-124.

"Quetzalcoatl's Fathers: A Critical Examination of Source Materials," http://web.ku.edu/~hoopes/aztlan/tripart.htm

All of the above use my training in ethnohistory, which deals with the interpretation of historical material for non-Western cultures.

I am proposing that the same methodologies be applied to the Book of Mormon. Do you see an issue with that?

[Gervin]

All of the above use my training in ethnohistory, which deals with the interpretation of historical material for non-Western cultures.

I am proposing that the same methodologies be applied to the Book of Mormon. Do you see an issue with that?

I don't see any methodology. Simply providing a list of your publications and stating that you use your training does nothing to show a methodology, much less one that is peer-reviewed.

You stated a proposition (or an approach): "I propose that reading a text that claims ancient production against the proposed antiquity and the ethnohistorical analogy to other texts makes sense" but the methodology explains in detail how you go about this, the prejudices you bring to the table, the interaction with current scholarship, and the assumptions by which you reach conclusions. You stated that you are keen on "convinc[ing] any academic peers" of sound methodology. I'm just curious if your methodology is anywhere stated and how your academic peers reacted.

Most reviews worth their salt also attempt to deal with the stated methodologies. Here's the first example when I googled a book I'm currently reading. Meek's Review

Perhaps the reviews of your publications provide critical assessment of your methodologies?