Any new evidence for the historical account of the Book of Mormon?

[Honorentheos]

beastie,

I'll be on the run most of today, but I wanted to pose one question to you pursuant to the discussion above:

Within the context of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, over the course of the past century or so, how would you characterize the relative prevalence of poor among us? Would you say that there are only "isolated cases of need," or do we see distinct strata of rich and poor, with a well-defined "class" of the latter?

I will look forward to your answer.

In the interest of keeping the debate on topic, as in a court of law perhaps you could give reason that this will be pertinent to the discussion to warrant that this line of argument should continue? Otherwise, it seems to be a distraction rather than a progression of the debate.

Likewise, if you could make a good case for the above, it may be good to clarify what you mean in terms of scale - the LDS church certainly has a diverse range of rich and poor wards. In many stakes there are the "rich" wards and the "poor" wards. Likewise, there are the relatively wealthy US and European members and the more destitute third world members. Programs such as the perpetual education fund seem to exist precisely for this reason. In Mesa, AZ, I am familiar with a case where there was a "redistricting" of a stake about 5 years ago for the very reason of creating greater equity in the economic status of the ward members by moving the more affluent neighborhoods into one ward, despite the odd logistics of this move. The current boundaries result in a situation where the ward boundaries cross odd roads, leave islands within wards, etc. Mesa-south for those who are wondering.

[Honorentheos]

With the case of the poor among the Zoromites (as described in Alma 31-35) there may be a few items that may be important to the discussion.

First, it seems that the poor class among the Zoromites were the ones who built the buildings (described as synagogues) from which they were then excluded from entering for worship as discussed above. Among mesoamerican's, would there be a class that was specifically tied to public infrastructure construction? Would they be landless, and thus dependent on the economic trade of labour for food and clothing?

Second, they are described as both a class, and as a great multitude in Alma 32, seeming to imply that there was a significant number of people who were part of this group.

Thirdly, it has already been mentioned that one of the means that the people of Ammon in the land of Jershon provide charity to this multitude is by feeding and clothing them. Regardless of the feeding and providing them land, why would they need to have clothed them if the significance of their lack of clothing in the previous sections was tied to an apostate religion which they have subsequently rejected in favor of the religion of Alma the younger rather than the result of extreme poverty? (See Alma 35:9)

[Brant Gardner]

I've already replied to Brant on this issue, but for you want to emphasize a scripture I just shared from Alma chapter 4:

Both you and Brant keep assuring me that the poverty described in the BoM was nothing more than isolated cases of need, not an entire class of poor. Yet these verses explicitly tell us that there was great inequality among the people - and this inequality was directly connected to neglect of the poor.

So much seems to depend upon what you have elected to see. If you will remember, I have consistently said that a problem against which the Nephites fought was encrouching social hierarchies (which, as you also know) creates classes. Once there is a top class, there is also a bottom class (which English tends to call "poor").

So, when you show that the Nephites are unhappy with "great inequality" you are reiterating the point I have been making. The problem is the differentiation - the inequality. As for whether or not naked and hungry (which are certainly mentioned in Alma 12:4--a verse I cited before, I remind you) form a class, I argue that they clearly do not because of the semantic context in which those terms are found. They are functionally equivalent to "sick and aflicted," or "athirst." I have never heard of any one being defined as poor because they were thirsty. Sick and afflicted simply do not fit class definitions. Nevertheless, as soon as you see someone complaining about neglecting the poor and inequality, you immediately create a poor class. Agricultural communities provide ample examples where this need not be the case.

You also complained when I suggested that a certain phrase was figurative. Anticipating that, I gave you the reason why it made more sense to see those terms as figurative than literal. You did not engage that argument, but simply dismissed it. You have since continued to insist that your literal reading is the only one appropriate.

As I have repeated, now one too many times, this is a discussion over how to read and apply evidence. I haven't seen you come to grips with any of the issues that are so fundamental to your arguments. Instead, you simply repeat them as though the repetition created validation.

I really do have to stop participating in this cycle.

[Brant Gardner]

First, it seems that the poor class among the Zoromites were the ones who built the buildings (described as synagogues) from which they were then excluded from entering for worship as discussed above. Among mesoamerican's, would there be a class that was specifically tied to public infrastructure construction? Would they be landless, and thus dependent on the economic trade of labour for food and clothing?

There isn't a single answer to your question, because the Preclassic saw a movement from more egalitarian to more stratified. The more stratification, the more the elite did not build and the lower class did. There were no landless. Everyone was tied to the land. There was no monetary system, so there was nothing like what happened in the Roman occupation of Israel, where land ownership was removed from the people and concentrated in the hands of the elite.

It appears that Mesoamerican kings ruled as long as the people they ruled saw value in the relationship. The demise of Copan is hypothesized to have resulted from a popular loss of confidence, not only in the king, but in the system of kings.

For the Zoramites the textual evidence suggests that they are a hierarchical society that is creating ways to define cultural distinctions. There is clearly an upper and lower class in Antionum.

Second, they are described as both a class, and as a great multitude in Alma 32, seeming to imply that there was a significant number of people who were part of this group.

As there should be. The lowest class in an agricultural society is that of the local producer. They are the ones still tied to the fields and producing the food that fuels the upper classes.

Beastie's issue here is that she assumes that lower class=poor=western-destitute-poor. She is correct that this should not exist in Mesoamerica or in the Book of Mormon. The problem is, she sees it in the Book of Mormon, and I don't. I can't accept any of her readings that attempt to place it in the Book of Mormon.

Thirdly, it has already been mentioned that one of the means that the people of Ammon in the land of Jershon provide charity to this multitude is by feeding and clothing them. Regardless of the feeding and providing them land, why would they need to have clothed them if the significance of their lack of clothing in the previous sections was tied to an apostate religion which they have subsequently rejected in favor of the religion of Alma the younger rather than the result of extreme poverty? (See Alma 35:9)

That is where beastie didn't read what I wrote, and I suspect you did not either. The problem with the feeding and clothing is that it is a phrase that has cultural implications of care that may be more than what it literally says. The question, therefore, isn't whether or not it could be literal, but whether it is. The reason that it must be seen as figurative rather than comes from a different description of those same people:

(Alma 32:2) And it came to pass that after much labor among them, they began to have success among the poor class of people; for behold, they were cast out of the synagogues because of the coarseness of their apparelâ??

This verse contradicts the concept that the Zoramite "poor" were naked. When the context is description of their clothing (not description of the humanity of their care) they are not naked. They simply have coarse clothing. Not no clothing. Not raggy clothing. Coarseness is the issue, contrasting with the fine apparel of the upperclass, and serving as a very clear class marker.

Therefore, when they go to Jershon, hospitality is extended, and the terms used for that in the Book of Mormon text are often feeding and clothing the naked (doubtless from the NT model, for example: Matt 25:35-36 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me).

Again, the reason that the Jershon description is more likely figurative is supported by two important data: 1) it contradicts an explicit statement about clothing earlier, and 2) the earlier statement focuses specifically on the clothing and hence is more likely to be a literal statement.

[Nomad]

Honor,

I believe the question to be supremely relevant to the discussion at hand.

In fact, had beastie not cited Alma 4-5 in defense of her argument, I had already planned on doing so in defense of the argument Brant has been making.

Let us then examine closely this very telling episode in the Book of Mormon (I hope the gospel doctrine instructor was not offended that I typed this up during Sunday School.)

Alma has become greatly concerned about the spiritual trajectory of the people over whom, as the high priest of the church, he presides. In consequence of his concern, he abdicates his concurrent role as the chief judge and goes out to preach repentance to the people. Of this time (about 85 B.C.) we read:

â?¦ it came to pass in the eighth year of the reign of the judges, that the people of the church began to wax proud, because of their exceeding riches, and their fine silks, and their fine-twined linen, and because of their many flocks and herds, and their gold and their silver, and all manner of precious things, which they had obtained by their industry; and in all these things were they lifted up in the pride of their eyes, for they began to wear very costly apparel.

Alma 4:6 (emphasis mine; I shall refer to the bolded phrase below)

Speaking of Alma and the other â??teachers, priests, and eldersâ? of the church, we then read:

â?¦ many of them were sorely grieved for the wickedness which they saw had begun to be among their people.

For they saw and beheld with great sorrow that the people of the church began to be lifted up in the pride of their eyes, and to set their hearts upon riches and upon the vain things of the world, that they began to be scornful, one towards another, and they began to persecute those that did not believe according to their own will and pleasure.

Alma 4: 7-8 (emphasis mine, as above)

Then we reach the verse that beastie has cited above. I shall cite it again along with both the subsequent and succeeding verses:

â?¦ And it came to pass in the commencement of the ninth year, [ca. 83 B.C.] Alma saw the wickedness of the church, and he saw also that the example of the church began to lead those who were unbelievers on from one piece of iniquity to another, thus bringing on the destruction of the people.

Yea, he saw great inequality among the people, some lifting themselves up with their pride, despising others, turning their backs upon the needy and the naked and those who were hungry, and those who were athirst, and those who were sick and afflicted.

Now this was a great cause for lamentations among the people, while others were abasing themselves, succoring those who stood in need of their succor, such as imparting their substance to the poor and the needy, feeding the hungry, and suffering all manner of afflictions, for Christâ??s sake, who should come according to the spirit of prophecy â?¦

Alma 4:11-13 (emphasis mine, as above)

The first question we must answer is: what is the nature of the â??inequalityâ? that Alma sees among the people of the church?

First of all, we can see from verse 6 above that the people who are becoming â??lifted up in the pride of their eyesâ? had accumulated their wealth â?? and this is a very significant point to consider â?? â?by their industryâ?.

This does not describe an aristocratic upper class like could be seen later in Mesoamerica. This is simply a group of people who, through their hard work and good management of resources, has accumulated a certain degree of wealth.

Readers familiar with the distinctive marks of classic social stratification will recognize the import of this fact: this culture has not yet arrived at the point of true class distinctions, but it is showing the first symptoms of the conditions that will tend towards that end.

The growing body of the â??richâ? among them is beginning to think of themselves in privileged terms; looking down upon their presumably less industrious peers as inferior.

It is clear that what we are seeing is a people who were peers not long ago, but who are beginning to divide along socio-economic lines. Worst of all, in the eyes of Alma (and we shall see proof of this assertion as I continue), the proud are beginning â??to persecute those that did not believe according to their own will and pleasure.â? In other words, t is also becoming a question of hedonistic ideology, with the proud and rich beginning to justify their wickedness. Just a little down the road in the lifetime of Alma we will see the famous Korihor formalize this thinking into a concise doctrine:

â?¦ every man fare in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prosper according to his genius, and â?¦ every man conquer according to his strength; and whatsoever a man [does is] no crime.

Alma 30:17

Additionally, we are told that among the people:

â?¦ others were abasing themselves, succoring those who stood in need of their succor, such as imparting their substance to the poor and the needy, feeding the hungry, and suffering all manner of afflictions, for Christâ??s sake â?¦

This is what Alma desires to see in all the believers in Christ â?? the willingness to be humble and impart, as possible, of their abundance to those who have less. It is a question of attitudes and social philosophy, as dictated by the precepts of their religion.

We read:

â?¦ he did â?¦ go forth among his people, or among the people of Nephi, that he might preach the word of God unto them, to stir them up in remembrance of their duty, and that he might pull down, by the word of God, all the pride and craftiness and all the contentions which were among his people, seeing no way that he might reclaim them save it were in bearing down in pure testimony against them.

Alma 4:19

What follows is one of the great treatises in the entire Book of Mormon. It is probably one of the most often quoted chapters in general conferences of the church to this day.

He cites to them the history of their recent deliverance from bondage at the hands of the Lamanites. Remember, he is speaking to those who, just a few years previous, were afflicted, enslaved, ultimately delivered, and forced to flee from the land of their birth. We are now in only the second generation since that time. He reminds this new generation of the great prophet Abinadi, saying:

â?¦ he preached the word unto your fathers, and a mighty change was also wrought in their hearts, and they humbled themselves and put their trust in the true and living God.

Alma 5:14

And then, he asks them the pointed question:

â?¦ I ask of you, my brethren of the church, have ye spiritually been born of God? Have ye received his image in your countenances? Have ye experienced this mighty change in your hearts?

Alma 5:15

What follows is an impressive smack down of this increasingly prideful second generation. He systematically lists the charges against them in terms of failing to do their duty towards their God, and then asks them:

Could ye say, if ye were called to die at this time, within yourselves, that ye have been sufficiently humble?

â?¦

O ye workers of iniquity; ye that are puffed up in the vain things of the world, ye that have professed to have known the ways of righteousness nevertheless have gone astray, as sheep having no shepherd, notwithstanding a shepherd hath called after you and is still calling after you, but ye will not hearken unto his voice!

Alma 5:27, 37

He bears down with strong doctrine and powerful testimony. It is an overwhelming performance. And, right at the end, he makes mention of their social obligations:

And now my beloved brethren, I say unto you, can ye withstand these sayings; yea, can ye lay aside these things, and trample the Holy One under your feet; yea, can ye be puffed up in the pride of your hearts; yea, will ye still persist in the wearing of costly apparel and setting your hearts upon the vain things of the world, upon your riches?

Yea, will ye persist in supposing that ye are better one than another; yea, will ye persist in the persecution of your brethren, who humble themselves and do walk after the holy order of God, wherewith they have been brought into this church, having been sanctified by the Holy Spirit, and they do bring forth works which are meet for repentanceâ??

Yea, and will you persist in turning your backs upon the poor, and the needy, and in withholding your substance from them?

And finally, all ye that will persist in your wickedness, I say unto you that these are they who shall be hewn down and cast into the fire except they speedily repent.

Alma 5:53-56

Well, many of them do in fact see the error of their ways and they begin to repent of the wickedness into which they had begun to fall.

Now, we must remember that we are talking about a pluralistic society here in Zarahemla. (We know at least of Nephites and Zarahemlans.) And there is also a mixture of religious and non-religious. Indeed, the ratio of the religious to the irreligious is expressed such that we can see the former are consistently outnumbered by the latter. Hence the need for constant missionary work among the people who are nominally called â??Nephitesâ? by the authors of the book.

What this tells us, of course, is that Alma is constantly confronting the consequences of the people of the church abandoning the precepts of their doctrine in favor of adopting the attitudes and practices of the â??non-believersâ? around them.

At the end of his preaching tour de force he says:

I speak by way of command unto you that belong to the church; and unto those who do not belong to the church I speak by way of invitation, saying: Come and be baptized unto repentance, that ye also may be partakers of the fruit of the tree of life.

Things are then, at least temporarily, set in order in Zarahemla, and so Alma heads to the other cities in the land where members of the church are to be found.

Oh, it is all so unambiguous to anyone with even rudimentary reading comprehension skills! One almost has to be deliberately obtuse to not see it.

The â??inequalityâ? that Alma sees is not predominantly material in nature! It is their souls about which he is concerned, and he simply understands that the welfare of their souls depends on their being consistently humble and willing to impart to those in need. One can easily perceive, by the very structure and content of Almaâ??s sermon in Zarahemla, that the need of the would-be proud to impart of their material substance is greater, in Almaâ??s mind, than even the material needs of the â??poorâ? among them.

These are not classes in the fashion we see later in Mesoamerica, and which would have been known and understood in 19th century Britain or America. There is no perceptible â??ruling classâ? or â??aristocracyâ?. There is apparently a growing bourgeosie, as it were â?? undoubtedly a mercantile class who is able to parlay their business acumen (their â??industryâ?) into substantial wealth in a very short period of time. There is probably even a class of quasi-gentry â?? businessmen farmers who also have obtained considerable riches through â??their industry.â? But there is no perceptible proletariat present in this tableau vivant. Sure, here as elsewhere throughout human history, â??the poor always ye have with you.â? But thatâ??s not the issue at all. Itâ??s all about shaping the attitudes of the believers in order to optimize their faithfulness, humility, and generosity towards all.

And this is what we see in every instance that beastie cites and misreads. She is mistaking the threat of socio-economic division, and its accompanying recognition and condemnation, with a picture of class stratification straight out of Engelsâ?? The Condition of the Working Class in England

Her entire argument is an example of miscomprehended proof-texting run amok. One is inclined to question if she ever apprehended the intent of the authors of this book in which she used to believe. Her misreading of this episode in the life of Alma and his people is sadly consistent with her misreadings elsewhere, and typical of exmormon minds everywhere, as I have observed them.

[Honorentheos]

So much seems to depend upon what you have elected to see. If you will remember, I have consistently said that a problem against which the Nephites fought was encrouching social hierarchies (which, as you also know) creates classes. Once there is a top class, there is also a bottom class (which English tends to call "poor").

So, when you show that the Nephites are unhappy with "great inequality" you are reiterating the point I have been making. The problem is the differentiation - the inequality. As for whether or not naked and hungry (which are certainly mentioned in Alma 12:4--a verse I cited before, I remind you) form a class, I argue that they clearly do not because of the semantic context in which those terms are found. They are functionally equivalent to "sick and aflicted," or "athirst." I have never heard of any one being defined as poor because they were thirsty. Sick and afflicted simply do not fit class definitions. Nevertheless, as soon as you see someone complaining about neglecting the poor and inequality, you immediately create a poor class. Agricultural communities provide ample examples where this need not be the case.

In the first chapter of Jacob, it seems that the Nephites have already formed a theocratic social hierarchy of some sort that includes a top class (king) other elevated classes (priests and teachers) and is struggling internally with a stratification among the laymen based on materialism. Is this that different from the type of class-structure we see later in Alma among those who are apostates from the Nephites? The main difference seems to be related to a belief in Christ or lack thereof. In many ways the Zoromites seem to be an interpretation of the Pharisee's of the New Testament, and possibly a counter to other forms of more modern worship, if one were to take the reading that this was a 19th century document only. Perhaps there is a subtle distinction that I am missing?

You also complained when I suggested that a certain phrase was figurative. Anticipating that, I gave you the reason why it made more sense to see those terms as figurative than literal. You did not engage that argument, but simply dismissed it. You have since continued to insist that your literal reading is the only one appropriate.

As I have repeated, now one too many times, this is a discussion over how to read and apply evidence. I haven't seen you come to grips with any of the issues that are so fundamental to your arguments. Instead, you simply repeat them as though the repetition created validation.

The issue with the question of figurative vs. literal readings of the text is that the figurative reading relies on the subjective views and will of the reader. The reader becomes an agent of creation for this narrative in a manner that applies more appropriately to the story-telling or mythic nature of the BoM narrative. Which is ok, IMO. I do not find this odd or problematic at all. The 19th century mormon applied a context and reading that brought meaning to the narrative within a setting that they could relate to and use to find religious meaning for them. It happened to have issues that modern readers of the narrative can no longer ignore, and can not continue to apply once certain constraints with this subjective reading are understood. As the hemispheric model has evolved to the LGT, with the setting shifting for modern LDS to mesoamerica, this partnership between the reader and the narrative continues to allow the modern mormon to achieve these same purposes.

This also suggests that, in the absence of the ability to show that the BoM narrative can only apply to the proposed mesoamerican setting, this adaptation to future mormon needs will continue giving the BoM narrative flexibility in allowing for these figurative readings in possible new settings.

To me, this suggests that the modern apologist should be looking for objective ways to read the text that take the debate out of the realm of the subjective and into the realm of the objective - finding those things that do not rely on the interpretation of the reader to place them in a given location.

The nature of language, the internal connotations that words and phrases carry, and their effect on our perception of reality is an interesting subject to me. Philosophically, one can say that our language creates the reality that we live in, and the problems you point to are very real. There is a certain view in anthropology that a person can not fully understand what it means to be a member of a certain group from a purely outsider's observers perspective. The I/they model of understanding is one that many a believer has objected to on any number of threads when a person questions the intangible, experiential elements of religious belief and participation. On the other hand, one questions if the person who has become a "we" is capable of adding to the objective, scientific questions regarding a culture and what it "is", but only understands better how it "feels" to be part of that culture.

In this case regarding the subjective reading of the text in the guise of "objectively" applying a historically more accurate figurative reading, the question is one of whether the 21st century reader is reinterpreting the language of JS who was interpreting the words of Mormon, who was interpreting many Nephite prophets, or if the modern reader is interpreting something else - a derivative of any number of counter theories to the authorship of the BoM.

But either way, the question now becomes how much this is telling us about the subject? or instead as is implied towards beasties reading, can it really only tell us about the disposition of the reader? including the believer's?

But if this is the case, then what prevents one from then applying this logic to the author of the BoM? If, through this process, we can no longer be sure of anything other than that the text provides us a glimpse of the disposition of the author why not ask if this is more a question of what we know regarding the disposition of JS/Oliver Cowdery towards subjects such as the poor? Does the textual reading we are focusing on eliminate this possibility? Or is the figurative reading that you propose only more convient for your particular view? Since there are multiple readings of the BoM text (as we are now calling one the literal and one the subjective), can we honestly say either view is more valid than the other? Using Occam's razor, until there is reason to do so otherwise, wouldn't the prudent approach suggest that the more literal reading is more likely until more substantial evidence requires that the BoM narrative be placed within the mesoamericas of the 600 BCE to 400 CE?

And again, these leads us to where I think the matter must go - to those items that place the BoM narrative ONLY in the mesoamericas in the correct time frame.

Otherwise, the story within this context is valid for its mythical value to believers, but is it valid as a proof of new evidence for the reality of the events and person's portrayed?

[Honorentheos]

I hope you don't mind if I snip a large part of this out. For those who are interested, it is above for reference -

Honor,

I believe the question to be supremely relevant to the discussion at hand.

He cites to them the history of their recent deliverance from bondage at the hands of the Lamanites. Remember, he is speaking to those who, just a few years previous, were afflicted, enslaved, ultimately delivered, and forced to flee from the land of their birth. We are now in only the second generation since that time. ... What follows is an impressive smack down of this increasingly prideful second generation. He systematically lists the charges against them in terms of failing to do their duty towards their God, and then asks them: (see above for quote)

He bears down with strong doctrine and powerful testimony. It is an overwhelming performance. And, right at the end, he makes mention of their social obligations.

The question becomes one of context - doesn't this apply to the post-revolutionary US? 2nd generation, wealth generated by industry in the absence of a strong aristocracy...isn't this also a possible description of the world of JS?

Oh, it is all so unambiguous to anyone with even rudimentary reading comprehension skills! One almost has to be deliberately obtuse to not see it.

There are many views that are possible here, the one you prefer being one of them. What is more obtuse? to recognize that the matter is entirely subjective and the view one chooses is, in large measure, based on the observer as much as the observed? or that those who hold differing views are lacking in reading comprehension skills?

The question remains unanswered - why does the modern structure of social classes within the LDS church matter to this discussion?

[Honorentheos]

There isn't a single answer to your question, because the Preclassic saw a movement from more egalitarian to more stratified. The more stratification, the more the elite did not build and the lower class did. There were no landless. Everyone was tied to the land. There was no monetary system, ...

I apologize that I have not read your books, so I am guessing there is a significant discussion I have missed regarding the Nephite monetary system described in the Book of Alma and your statement above.

It appears that Mesoamerican kings ruled as long as the people they ruled saw value in the relationship. The demise of Copan is hypothesized to have resulted from a popular loss of confidence, not only in the king, but in the system of kings.

For the Zoramites the textual evidence suggests that they are a hierarchical society that is creating ways to define cultural distinctions. There is clearly an upper and lower class in Antionum.

Does this not also apply to the Jacob Nephites? at least formatively?

As there should be. The lowest class in an agricultural society is that of the local producer. They are the ones still tied to the fields and producing the food that fuels the upper classes.

I am not sure that the text itself precludes the possibility of a non-landed poor. Rather, is this again a case of subjective interpretation?

Beastie's issue here is that she assumes that lower class=poor=western-destitute-poor. She is correct that this should not exist in Mesoamerica or in the Book of Mormon. The problem is, she sees it in the Book of Mormon, and I don't. I can't accept any of her readings that attempt to place it in the Book of Mormon.

That is where beastie didn't read what I wrote, and I suspect you did not either. The problem with the feeding and clothing is that it is a phrase that has cultural implications of care that may be more than what it literally says. The question, therefore, isn't whether or not it could be literal, but whether it is. The reason that it must be seen as figurative rather than comes from a different description of those same people:

This verse contradicts the concept that the Zoramite "poor" were naked. When the context is description of their clothing (not description of the humanity of their care) they are not naked. They simply have coarse clothing. Not no clothing. Not raggy clothing. Coarseness is the issue, contrasting with the fine apparel of the upperclass, and serving as a very clear class marker.

Therefore, when they go to Jershon, hospitality is extended, and the terms used for that in the Book of Mormon text are often feeding and clothing the naked (doubtless from the NT model, for example: Matt 25:35-36 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me).

Again, the reason that the Jershon description is more likely figurative is supported by two important data: 1) it contradicts an explicit statement about clothing earlier, and 2) the earlier statement focuses specifically on the clothing and hence is more likely to be a literal statement.

I hope that we can explore this more based on my posting above. But I am also unsure that this addresses the question of why coarseness of apparel will matter to non-Zoramites? If it is a turn of phrase to denote hospitality, why mention the contrast between wealth=fine clothing and poor=course clothing in a social structure if it will, in turn, not matter to the Nephites what you wear? Did the Nephites give the converted Zoramites new clothing that would, in some manner, be "better" than what they were already wearing? Like providing new clothes to a homeless person who is wearing clothes like we in the modern US associate with homelessness? Is this also not clothing the naked in our modern understanding? If so, is there not a social structure that gives this concept meaning? Clothing or decoration, in all cultures, has some meaning. What evidence is there that the Nephites were without this distinction as well? And if they aren't, why argue over the subtlety of a turn of a phrase?

[Nomad]

Honor:

The question remains unanswered - why does the modern structure of social classes within the LDS church matter to this discussion?

That you somehow managed to miss the answer to the question within my previous post is, I would think, emblematic of your (and beastie's) struggles in general.

Hint: despite the obvious absence of any pronounced social stratification in the modern Church, and despite a welfare program that is a wonder to all objective observers, one could easily pick any general conference in the past 100 years and locate several talks wherein the membership is encouraged, prodded, and even upbraided for failing to provide for the poor by imparting freely of their substance.

[Honorentheos]

Honor:

That you somehow managed to miss the answer to the question within my previous post is, I would think, emblematic of your (and beastie's) struggles in general.

Hint: despite the obvious absence of any pronounced social stratification in the modern Church, and despite a welfare program that is a wonder to all objective observers, one could easily pick any general conference in the past 100 years and locate several talks wherein the membership is encouraged, prodded, and even upbraided for failing to provide for the poor by imparting freely of their substance.

Perhaps you could demonstrate that your argument is, in fact correct? There is social stratification within the LDS church, especially when one goes beyond the borders of the US. Likewise, no one would argue that the social structure within which LDS members find themselves does not include a poor class, in every nation I am aware of where the church has members. Despite the misgivings of many non-members, I wold not consider Utah a theocracy. And despite the views of some members, apparently, there is a poverty class in Utah. And this applies everywhere one finds the Saints of today.

[Nomad]

Perhaps you could demonstrate that your argument is, in fact correct? There is social stratification within the LDS church, especially when one goes beyond the borders of the US. Likewise, no one would argue that the social structure within which LDS members find themselves does not include a poor class, in every nation I am aware of where the church has members. Despite the misgivings of many non-members, I wold not consider Utah a theocracy. And despite the views of some members, apparently, there is a poverty class in Utah. And this applies everywhere one finds the Saints of today.

To the extent there is social stratification within the church â?? and I agree there are valid arguments that might be made to that effect, especially when one takes into account the â??international churchâ? â?? I would also argue that the specimen of modern Mormonism is anything but a classic example of the kinds of social stratification that have given rise to the broadly accepted definition of the same. I would imagine the classic example is, in fact, industrial England in the mid-19th century. (Read Charles D i c k e n s' Hard Times and Elizabeth Gaskellâ??s Mary Barton for eloquent contemporary illustrations of that benighted era.)

Nevertheless, to the extent that social stratification can be said to exist in the present-day church, I would argue -- and strenuously so -- that the limited stratification we see among the Saints is roughly parallel to what Alma and his fellow prophets confronted among the Nephites in their day. Just as those ancient prophets labored constantly to combat the threat of disunity in their day, we similarly hear the constant admonitions in our day to avoid the very kinds of things against which Alma preaches in the address to which I have referred above.

The â??inequalityâ? to which Alma refers is the stark difference between those who have grown proud and selfish with their substance, and those who have substance and yet remain humble and generous. The former are at risk of losing their souls, whereas the latter are the paragon to be emulated.

That even the casual reader would not discern precisely that message upon reading Alma 4 â?? 5 is, to me, simply dumbfounding. But Iâ??m quite certain that you, beastie, and others will continue to see what you want to see, as opposed to seeing what is really there. Thatâ??s a given in any case. So â?¦ carry on.

[LeSellers]

the people of Ammon in the land of Jershon provide charity to this multitude ... by feeding and clothing them. Regardless of the feeding and providing them land, why would they need to have clothed them if the significance of their lack of clothing in the previous sections was tied to an apostate religion which they have subsequently rejected in favor of the religion of Alma the younger rather than the result of extreme poverty? (See Alma 35:9)

It couldn't be that, being driven out of their homes, they didn't take all of their clothing with them, now, could it?

Those who flee with little or nothing have, well, little or nothing.

Lehi

[Honorentheos]

It couldn't be that, being driven out of their homes, they didn't take all of their clothing with them, now, could it?

Those who flee with little or nothing have, well, little or nothing.

Lehi

While Alma 35:9 seems to specifically call them the poor, this may be one possible interpretation. I suppose there is no time frame to qualify this given in the text and being chased off with nothing is a quick road to poverty.

[Nomad]

While Alma 35:9 seems to specifically call them the poor, this may be one possible interpretation. I suppose there is no time frame to qualify this given in the text and being chased off with nothing is a quick road to poverty.

Of course they were poor! Poor who were taken in by their humble brethren and nourished both physically and spiritually.

My word, this simply cannot be so hard to comprehend, can it?

The question is not whether or not there were poor.

There are always poor, in one fashion or another.

The question is what kinds of conclusions can logically be drawn from the facts presented.

You and beastie seem to see a centralized quasi-superpower entity with aristocrats, snobby bourgeoisie, an oppressed proletariat slaving away on palatial public buildings, and countless homeless souls wandering the back alleys of Zarahemla in search of a crust of maize bread and a cup of watered-down cacao.

But that doesnâ??t mean that the picture you see has any resemblance to Nephite realities, though I consent that it does suit your peculiar purposes in hanging around with still-faithful Mormons.

[Honorentheos]

To the extent there is social stratification within the church â?? and I agree there are valid arguments that might be made to that effect, especially when one takes into account the â??international churchâ? â?? I would also argue that the specimen of modern Mormonism is anything but a classic example of the kinds of social stratification that have given rise to the broadly accepted definition of the same. I would imagine the classic example is, in fact, industrial England in the mid-19th century. (Read Charles D i c k e n s' Hard Times and Elizabeth Gaskellâ??s Mary Barton for eloquent contemporary illustrations of that benighted era.)

Nevertheless, to the extent that social stratification can be said to exist in the present-day church, I would argue -- and strenuously so -- that the limited stratification we see among the Saints is roughly parallel to what Alma and his fellow prophets confronted among the Nephites in their day. Just as those ancient prophets labored constantly to combat the threat of disunity in their day, we similarly hear the constant admonitions in our day to avoid the very kinds of things against which Alma preaches in the address to which I have referred above.

The â??inequalityâ? to which Alma refers is the stark difference between those who have grown proud and selfish with their substance, and those who have substance and yet remain humble and generous. The former are at risk of losing their souls, whereas the latter are the paragon to be emulated.

That even the casual reader would not discern precisely that message upon reading Alma 4 â?? 5 is, to me, simply dumbfounding. But Iâ??m quite certain that you, beastie, and others will continue to see what you want to see, as opposed to seeing what is really there. Thatâ??s a given in any case. So â?¦ carry on.

I don't disagree with your understanding of the verses -

Alma 4:9-14

9 And thus, in this eighth year of the reign of the judges, there began to be great contentions among the people of the church; yea, there were envyings, and strife, and malice, and persecutions, and pride, even to exceed the pride of those who did not belong to the church of God.

10 And thus ended the eighth year of the reign of the judges; and the wickedness of the church was a great stumbling-block to those who did not belong to the church; and thus the church began to fail in its progress.

11 And it came to pass in the *commencement of the ninth year, Alma saw the wickedness of the church, and he saw also that the example of the church began to lead those who were unbelievers on from one piece of iniquity to another, thus bringing on the destruction of the people.

12 Yea, he saw great inequality among the people, some lifting themselves up with their pride, despising others, turning their backs upon the needy and the naked and those who were hungry, and those who were athirst, and those who were sick and afflicted.

13 Now this was a great cause for lamentations among the people, while others were abasing themselves, succoring those who stood in need of their succor, such as imparting their substance to the poor and the needy, feeding the hungry, and suffering all manner of afflictions, for Christâ??s sake, who should come according to the spirit of prophecy;

14 Looking forward to that day, thus retaining a remission of their sins; being filled with great joy because of the resurrection of the dead, according to the will and power and deliverance of Jesus Christ from the bands of death.

...but I wonder how this shows that the interpretation of the motivations of the prophet in decrying this pride precludes the understanding that there was no class of poor? Based on the events described just prior to this, almost everyone was poor following the destruction brought on by war and as the people rebuilt from this, the stratification mentioned above begins. But what is to say that the writer of the narrative intended to imply there was not a class of people who failed to recover from this and became "the poor and the needy"?

So I am not sure that one can make the case that the status of the phrase "the poor and the needy" in relation to the scripture above and the modern LDS church is a term that now transcends the problems we have been discussing between the intended meaning of the authors (past and present) and the reader's understanding to go so far as to warrant a consistent interpretation within LDS theology that precludes a poor class of people.

[Honorentheos]

There are always poor, in one fashion or another.

The question is what kinds of conclusions can logically be drawn from the facts presented.

Well said.

[Brant Gardner]

In the first chapter of Jacob, it seems that the Nephites have already formed a theocratic social hierarchy of some sort that includes a top class (king) other elevated classes (priests and teachers) and is struggling internally with a stratification among the laymen based on materialism.

There is a named position of a king and specifications of those who are teachers and priests. There is, even at this early date, pressure towards social stratification, but the evidence isn't in the particular functions you mention. Those exist even later in Nephite culture when they have reestablished what they considered the more "pure" vision of their politic-religious entity. Nevertheless, the substance of Jacob's major discourse is against the rising social stratification (way too early to be classes, but only stratification based on access to sumptuary goods).

Is this that different from the type of class-structure we see later in Alma among those who are apostates from the Nephites?

There certainly isn't enough evidence in the text to make absolute statements, but using careful examinations of the text from multiple periods and using what is known of how cultures tend to develop, yes, there is a major difference. It is one of size and complexity.

The main difference seems to be related to a belief in Christ or lack thereof.

That is one of the typical traits of apostate Nephites. I co-authored a paper with Mark Wright on that topic, basically his data and my couching of those data to explain the phenomenon of Nephite apostasy. I am waiting for the paper to come out to see what the response is. I believe we can explain why Nephite apostasy always took the particular form we see in the Book of Mormon.

In many ways the Zoromites seem to be an interpretation of the Pharisee's of the New Testament, and possibly a counter to other forms of more modern worship, if one were to take the reading that this was a 19th century document only. Perhaps there is a subtle distinction that I am missing?

Yes. The Pharisees were the more popular party and concerned with adherence to the law. The Zoramites were against the law and moving away from it. Perhaps you are thinking of the hypocrite statements. I can see similarity there, but in this case, the very particular nature of Zoramite worship, as described, provides both the explanation for the reason that clothing became and issue and why the "poor" were "excluded." I admit that I don't take the exclusion as literal, because it makes no sense. If you are wealthy, you don't find ways to insult the people who feed you. However, if the problem really was based upon the incipient classes/social hierarchies, then the nature of worship tells you why the poor would feel excluded from a form a worship that required you to be singled out above everyone else--and obviously compared against everyone else. It was social exclusion, not mandated exclusion.

The issue with the question of figurative vs. literal readings of the text is that the figurative reading relies on the subjective views and will of the reader. The reader becomes an agent of creation for this narrative in a manner that applies more appropriately to the story-telling or mythic nature of the BoM narrative. Which is ok, IMO.

I don't disagree. However, we still have the rather important problem of the contradiction in the text. Where the text itself is in contradiction, you have to find a resolution.

It is either figurative, or the result of an incompetent 19th century author. I can accept that we need to look at both possibilities. What we cannot do, however, is insist on a literal reading simply because it fits our preconceived notion of what we are expecting to find. That doesn't work for apologist or critic. Bad form is bad form.

The 19th century mormon applied a context and reading that brought meaning to the narrative within a setting that they could relate to and use to find religious meaning for them. It happened to have issues that modern readers of the narrative can no longer ignore, and can not continue to apply once certain constraints with this subjective reading are understood. As the hemispheric model has evolved to the LGT, with the setting shifting for modern LDS to mesoamerica, this partnership between the reader and the narrative continues to allow the modern mormon to achieve these same purposes.

The text was originally read against the only culture that its readers knew. That process doesn't really change in the modern readings. The vast majority of readers still read the text against what culture they know. They have general ideas about antiquity, but nothing specific enough to be useful. Most read it against their own lives. Remarkably, that has worked for readers for almost 180 years. Of course, it has quite a while to go before it comes close to the time period that the Bible has been read in that very same way.

Scholarly readings of the Book of Mormon, as well as of the Bible, are very different animals (and usually perpetuated by differently-wired people <grin>). The LGT reading is the result of a process of reading that increasingly took the text seriously as an ancient text rather that simply as a text guiding modern life (though it hasn't stopped doing that). This required different questions to be asked. the quality of the answers depended strongly upon the academic grounding of those answering them. The better the background, the better the questions and answers. I think we are finally in a rather remarkably productive period, where we actually have people in the church who have the interest in seriously examining the Book of Mormon combined with the scholarly foundation in some of the required disciplines (not only history, but languages, anthropology, ethnohistory, linguistics, Old World studies and New World studies). I don't know of a single person who can handle the entirety of the scope needed.

This also suggests that, in the absence of the ability to show that the BoM narrative can only apply to the proposed mesoamerican setting, this adaptation to future mormon needs will continue giving the BoM narrative flexibility in allowing for these figurative readings in possible new settings.

No, this is a severe simplification. First, you are repeating your theme that the Book of Mormon must exclusively represent the proposed Mesoamerican setting. As I noted before, this is simply an incorrect formulation of the problem. History doesn't give us that many neat and tidy packages. Saying that the problem is more complex is not special pleading. It is simply the task historians (and particularly ethnohistorians) have to deal with no matter what the subject of their inquiry. There are those who have assumed, for example, that we should accept literally everything from the Spanish fathers describing native culture. That turns out to be far too simplistic. Each text has to be carefully examined to know what we can learn from it, and what we must be cautious about.

Secondly, what is happening in the development of scholarly exegesis of the cultural setting of the Book of Mormon isn't relying upon figurative readings. Your implication is that when you hit a bump in the road, you create a figurative reading to get over the bump. I have worked with many who are doing this kind of work, and it is rare (I can't think of any examples at all, but surely there is one). As you may have noticed, when I gave a figurative reading, I also justified the reason that I gave that reading. That is what is required. You can't surrender scholarship for convenience.

To me, this suggests that the modern apologist should be looking for objective ways to read the text that take the debate out of the realm of the subjective and into the realm of the objective - finding those things that do not rely on the interpretation of the reader to place them in a given location.

Which is, of course, exactly what we are trying to do. However, the assumption that a text does not need interpretation is not part of any historical enterprise and is an unreasonable and untenable constraint (whether religious or secular).

(I am constrained by time to stop responding at this point. My apologies).

[Honorentheos]

No, this is a severe simplification. First, you are repeating your theme that the Book of Mormon must exclusively represent the proposed Mesoamerican setting.

I think you are misreading me. I am here only suggesting that the current mesoamerican reading of the context for the BoM narrative is possibly as flexible as the past understanding of it within the hemispheric model was to the 19th century saints. I recognize the challenges and complexity that the historical reading of the text presents to the researchers such as yourself who must, out of need, contend with the possiblity that it is a historical document that has passed through many hands, so to speak. I also understand the position of some mormon, non-lds groups as well as individuals that have taken a less literal stand on the historicity of the book and favoring its subjective/interpretive understanding instead.

It may seem overly simplistic to consider it a work of the 19th century only and therefore ask that the meso-only evidence be presented; however, the evidence to support the case that it is more than a 19th century work is the subject of this thread as a whole. In beasties arguments I see the case being made that it does not fit a mesoamerican context. The responses to the contrary, being what they are, do not seem to force the critic to move from their skeptism of the alternative premise. My thought was to see what evidence there was that would move the dialogue in that direction.

As another example independent of geography, I find the theology within the BoM to be amazing flexible as well. It seems there is little that is uniquely "mormon" in character (and much the could have been included that is not) within the BoM, yet the modern mormon can very easily fit modern lds theology onto the framework that the text provides. In some ways, it also seems that a non-biased modern christian, given just the theology and not the context, could possibly see a minor variant of acceptable Christianity within its pages. Perhaps even enough to avoid the need for rebaptism. And as mormonism evolves, I suspect that the framework of the BoM will continue to serve it's function well.

Secondly, what is happening in the development of scholarly exegesis of the cultural setting of the Book of Mormon isn't relying upon figurative readings. Your implication is that when you hit a bump in the road, you create a figurative reading to get over the bump. I have worked with many who are doing this kind of work, and it is rare (I can't think of any examples at all, but surely there is one). As you may have noticed, when I gave a figurative reading, I also justified the reason that I gave that reading. That is what is required. You can't surrender scholarship for convenience.

Which is, of course, exactly what we are trying to do. However, the assumption that a text does not need interpretation is not part of any historical enterprise and is an unreasonable and untenable constraint (whether religious or secular).

(I am constrained by time to stop responding at this point. My apologies).

I apologize if my statements suggest I did not see the function of how your reason for your reading certainly fits the context of the story as provided. My only question is why, outside of personal preference, one should give more weight to the figurative understanding than to the literal one? Perhaps this is why you may feel I am being inflexible in wishing to see the narrative "fixed" to the mesoamerican setting. To me, the preference should be given to the most likely understanding of the phrase or text unless there is a reasonable, independent reason to suggest a more complex reading of the text.

Unless there is an outside, objective reason to do so, I see these reasoned and logical alternative understandings to be the likely result of confabulation which is also a subjective process.

On confabulation (from V. Ramachandran's Phantom's in the Brain regarding split brain patients) -

â??When Gazzaniga flashed different pictures to the two hemispheres, things grew weirder. On one occasion he flashed a picture of a chicken claw on the right, and a picture of a house and a car covered in snow on the left. The patient was then shown an array of pictures and asked to point to the one that â??goes withâ? what he had seen. The patientâ??s right hand pointed to a picture of a chicken (which went with the chicken claw the left hemisphere had seen), but the left hand pointed to a picture of a shovel (which went with the snow scene presented to the right hemisphere).

When the patient was asked to explain his two responses, he did not say, â??I have no idea why my left hand is pointing to a shovel; it must be something you showed my right brain.â? Instead, the left hemisphere instantly made up a plausible story. The patient said, without any hesitation, â??Oh, thatâ??s easy. The chicken claw goes with the chicken, and you need a shovel to clean out the chicken shed.â?

This finding, that people will readily fabricate reasons to explain their own behavior, is called â??confabulation.â? Confabulation is so frequent in work with split-brain patients and other people suffering brain damage that Gazzaniga refers to the language centers on the left side of the brain as the interpreter module, whose job is to give a running commentary on whatever the self is doing, even though the interpreter module has no access to the real causes or motives of the self â??s behavior. For example, if the word â??walkâ? is flashed to the right hemisphere, the patient might stand up and walk away. When asked why he is getting up, he might say, â??Iâ??m going to get a Coke.â? The interpreter module is good at making up explanations, but not at knowing that it has done so.â?

The following article from the New Scientist is interesting as well and goes on to show that this is a mechanism that we all use to understand "feelings" or impression within our subconsious that really lack any tangible support at the conscious higher brain functioning levels - Mind Fiction

So if I appear to be fixated on pinning the narrative to a certain context, it is only to suggest that this is required to ensure we are not, as believer or critic, merely fleshing out our biases.

Anyway, I look forward, honestly, to your further comments and response. It's an interesting discussion on the whole.

[Honorentheos]

Perhaps I can reframe my request in the context of your previous statement, shown below, since it seems we agree on the subjectivity of the matter and also the direction the discussion should trend -

...

The real argument is very carefully building a case of how the text reads against either production culture and finding out which provides the picture that best explains the majority of the text. I doubt that there will be anything that will be universally considered as proof of one position or another, because we still have the problem of believing that "our side" won the debate (just like the political ones, and pretty obviously evidenced on message boards like this one <grin>).

The evidence to make that kind of case is long and complex and simply can't be done on a message board. However, I will tell you that I have been through the data and made those arguments as part of a more complete commentary on the Book of Mormon. Most people don't want to spend the money for 6 volumes to dig through a commentary for the cultural stuff. I'm working on something that will put all of it in a more compact argument, but it will take a while.

The thing that impresses me is that the Mesoamerican context provides a production culture that explains the text much better than the 19th century production culture theory. Regardless of how you want to read specific items of archeology, the logic of peoples actions in the text follow the "rules" of the more ancient culture in ways that make no sense if we limit the context to the 19th century. If the Book of Mormon were a novel written in 1830, it would be one that has huge conceptual gaps and people who do not act according to our understanding of how they should respond. Read against the Mesoamerican culture, however, actions that are nearly nonsensical without that context become not only natural, but quite understandable. It is what I call a productive convergence; where the interpretive framework tells you something about the text over and above what can be learned without that intepretive framework--very much in the same way that you learn more about the New Testament if you understand the culture of that time and place...

The entire discussion on the poverty class reminds me of Wittgenstein's comment that, "If a lion were given the power of speech, we would not understand him" or something to that effect. In otherwords, there are things about being a lion that require a subjective understanding of "lionness" that would make the mere use of words inadequate for real communication.

In your statement above you suggest there are things within the BoM text that are like lion-speak...they only make sense if one can gain an understanding of mesoamerican thinking. And from a 19th century perspective the text is not adequate to the task of explaining itself.

Perhaps we could start with one or two of these cases? The current one under consideration (i.e. - the poor and the needy) still seems to make perfect sense within an english reading if one is not attempting to superimpose the narrative over the mesoamericas. Perhaps if one first requires that the narrative is occurring in this location is your interpretation more logical, but does this require the reverse to be true? These other examples may be informative.

[LDS1973]

I'll just say this and move on.

There is no scientific evidence that demonstrates beyond doubt that the BoM is what JS said it is. Even the 'witnesses' never actually held the plates, but rather saw them with their 'spiritual eyes'. No scholarly peer reviewed journal has ever accepted research based upon the BoM. The church's expiditons over a decade of time came up completely empty handed. The Smithsonian has disavowed ever considering the BoM as an archiological tool.

Given the volume of JS' claims as written in the BoM and as he communicated to others, and the extraordinary claims that JS and subsequent LDS leaders have made regarding the BoM one would reasonably expect that the church would have truckloads of ancient artifacts by now. I mean JS told people exactly where the Hill Cumorah is, the crops, animals, cities, steel, etc. And yet throughout the past 150 years with thoushands of scientific expiditions through the Americas there is absolute no scholarly evidence to support the BoM. Let ms state this again. NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. Why do you think that is? If the BoM is literally a translation of ancient records then I guess God has decided to erase all evidence of the existence of the peoples who supposedly live within its pages. Or, did JS simply make it up? Which is more likely?

The ongoing 'discussion' around the BoM evidence will never end as long as faithful members want to believe. It will certainly NOT end when irrifutable evidence is discovered, because there IS NO such evidence, never was and never will be. It is absolute fact that no such evidence has emerged up to this point, and the liklihood of any ever being discovered is... how about NEVER!

[Nomad]

How did it get to be so late already?

In any case, I have two minutes to make another brief response to Honor's post above.

Vis-a-vis confabulation:

Sure, sure. We've heard this one before.

It's just a new twist on an old refrain:

... it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so.

Why do I occasionally get the feeling that we are actually carrying on a discussion with an artificial intelligence conversation device?

Test Question: What is the air speed velocity of a coconut-laden swallow?

[Honorentheos]

editted for repeat posting, below

[Calm]

Even the 'witnesses' never actually held the plates, but rather saw them with their 'spiritual eyes'.

Off topic so I will only link to possible answers to this criticism, please start a new thread if you are interested:

http://en.fairmormon.org/%22Eye_of_Faith%2...y_Martin_Harris

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_wi...ernatural_power

[Honorentheos]

How did it get to be so late already?

In any case, I have two minutes to make another brief response to Honor's post above.

Vis-a-vis confabulation:

Sure, sure. We've heard this one before.

I've heard it said that modern prophets seldom teach anything new, but rather reiterate the points that are so easy to say and difficult to understand and internalize in a meaningful way.

It's just a new twist on an old refrain:

There is, after all, nothing new under the sun.

It's interesting, Nomad, that researchers have taken this concept of confabulation, discussed it and its significance with people, and gotten to the point of understanding where the person will say, "Wow, that makes so-and-so's actions make so much sense!" and yet it is very unlikely that the person can make the leap to understanding that they are also prone to this devise.

I am not excepting myself, Nomad. I am simply pointing it out and suggesting a method to ground the discussion in a more objective framework.

Why do I occasionally get the feeling that we are actually carrying on a discussion with an artificial intelligence conversation device?

Test Question: What is the air speed velocity of a coconut-laden swallow?

African or European?

Personally, there are much better quotes from the movie than this. Like the watery tarts distributing swords...

[Calm]

I've heard it said that modern prophets seldom teach anything new, but rather reiterate the points that are so easy to say and difficult to understand and internalize in a meaningful way.

There is, after all, nothing new under the sun.

Which was said by an OT prophet (or at least poet). If one reads the scriptures, they are full of repetition as well, most prophets adding a personal twist to teachings given in the past. I highly doubt we have all the teachings of either OT or NT prophets, the repetition would be even more obvious imo if we did.

Why would the repetition of teaching salvific truths cease prior to the acceptance or rejection of salvation by all peoples?