Is Historicity Important To The Book of Mormon?

[handys003]

Yes I can see your pointing towards Ahston description , but Potter has pointed towards other areas of intrest. The land of Dedan where eventually the people changed their name to Lehianites, and the baptismal fonts and ruins of an old temple there, plus the depicted inscription on the rocks pertaing to Christ. Also the view point differences between Potter and Ashton on where Nephi built his ship and how they were built. Ashton is adamant about Khor Kharfot beiing "Bountiful" whereas Potter is Khor Rori (Bountiful). These are viable backed by scripture. Ashton also used some of Potters work as resources to his version, but Potter disagrees with many of his conclusions. Here are several articles by Potter distancing to Ashtons conclusions:

Ahhh, Sorry about having to do cut and paste on the articles, but I deleted my link to the pages a while ago

Khor Kharfot is not Nephi’s Bountiful

By George Potter

“Identifying Our Best Candidate for Nephi’s Bountiful” appears in the 17/1 issue of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (JBMS). The article’s title suggest that its author, Warren Aston, will provide supporting factual evidences that he has identified the “best” candidate for Bountiful. However, after reading the article, I ask the reader to search for the supportive authoritative evidences Aston uses for drawing his conclusion that Khor Kharfot is “uniquely” endowed to be so selected. There are no such evidences. Instead of empirical evidence, Aston presents his same four unsound arguments that he presented in his 15/2 JBMS article: 1) Today there is abundant natural flora at Khor Kharfot; 2) there are trees that grow in the wadi today that could be used to build a ship; 3) there is a mountain at the Khor; and 4) the place was uninhabited.

The trouble with Aston’s logic is that his first three arguments, wild flora, tall trees, and mountains are not exclusive. These three elements are found at or very near each of the possible Bountiful candidates in Oman. Although Aston is passionate about his flora, his trees, and his mountain, they do not distinguish Khor Kharfot from dozens of other locations in the region, nor does he provide any scientific basis for why his flora, his trees or his mountain are associated with Nephi’s record. Brigham Young University emeritus professor of geology, Dr. William Revell Phillips, writes in reference to Aston’s candidate for Bountiful, Khor Kharfot:

Much fruit and wild honey.

The only cultivated fruit orchards today are at Salalah, and this was likely so in the past as the soil and growing conditions are most favorable there. These cultivated orchards do indeed produce an abundance of seasonal fruits and wild fruits and may have done so in the past. Wild fruits and legumes (figs, dates, tamarinds) grow in all the mountainous areas of the Dhofar relatively near all of the proposed Bountiful sites, but they are seasonal and not really in great abundance. Living “off the land” is always a full-time job, and gathering wild produce often expends more calories that it provides. Wild honey is available near all of the proposed Bountiful sites.

Shipbuilding timber

Timber appropriate for building a conventional, oceangoing ship does not grow anywhere along the Omani coast and probably did not in the past. Either Nephi’s ship was not conventional, or he obtained appropriate timber from some distant source. We are told that Nephi’s ship was not “after the manner of men” and that the timber he used was of “curious workmanship,” which opens numerous possibilities. Warren Aston proposes a raftlike ship, which is certainly a possibility and could probably be built with materials at hand. If the ship were built at Khor Rori or even at Salalah, teak lumber from India was almost certainly available for purchase on the docks at Khor Rori.

Nearby mount

Mountains and hills are everywhere along the Dhofar coast, but are several kilometers north of the shoreline along the Salalah Plain.

Phillips might have added that fruit plantations are found at Taqah, only two miles west from my candidate for Nephi’s harbor, the inlet of Khor Rori. Two miles north of Khor Rori are mountains, and within five miles to the east are iron ore deposits and an ancient flint quarry.

Dr. Phillips makes it clear that Aston’s first three arguments for his best candidate apply to all the possible “khor” (inlets) in the Dhofar region where Lehi could have made his beachside camp. Furthermore, Phillips raises the advantages of building a ship at Khor Rori.

As for Aston’s fourth line of reasoning, that Bountiful was uninhabited—again, this is based solely on his personal interpretation of the Book of Mormon. Nephi’s record does not tell us whether Bountiful was inhabited or not. However, several verses in the Book of Mormon imply an inhabited paradigm for Bountiful: 1) Nephi states that they left the wilderness (1 Nephi 17:4, a wilderness being defined as a place where people do not live, but when they reached Bountiful, they left the wilderness); 2) Nephi must have observed how “other men” were building ships (1 Nephi 18:2); 3) Nephi describes working in timbers of curious workmanship (1 Nephi 18:1, so someone must have worked the timbers besides Nephi, or how could the timbers have seemed curious to him?); and finally, 4) Nephi was a successful missionary D&C 33:7-8 in Arabia, thus he interacted with locals before his ship left for the Promised Land. Phillips writes:

Before I embark on my version of Lehi’s sojourn from Nahom into Land Bountiful let me reject the idea that Lehi and his party were completely alone in the “wilderness.” Lehi traveled through tribal lands and drank from jealously guarded springs and watering holes. In the desert, no source of water is without a claimant and no one travels or camps or waters animals without permission from a suspicious, and probably hostile, tribal leader. What Lehi offered in return for permission we can only guess; moreover, iron-age signs of habitation, contemporary with Lehi, are abundant both along the Dhofar coast and inland.

Aston’s argument that Nephi built his ship in total isolation flies in the face of all that is known about the history of southern Arabia and the Book of Mormon, and even with his own words, as quoted above. The Dhofar region has been populated since the time of Genesis; Lehi, Nephi, and later Jacobs were prophets whose calling it was to teach and warn people—not to hide out in the hills. Besides, they were camped on the shoreline while Nephi constructed an impressive ship, and erecting a large ship and building fires to forge tools would have made their camp known to the locals. Fishermen on the ships that came to Dhofar to trade for incense would have spotted the Lehites and would have warned the ruling sheiks that someone was trespassing on their land. Phillips continues in reference to Khor Kharfot:

Unpopulated:

On this point, I differ sharply with Warren Astonâ?¦ Lehi had neighbors and if he tried to avoid them and was not curious about them, they were certainly curious about him. In a short time, he must have become aware of significant population centers along the coast and of a major commercial port at Khor Rori, where a wide variety of supplies and amenities were probably available. Surely, some members of Lehi’s extended people must have traded with them, learned from them, and given help and received help in a wide variety of endeavors.

I am left to wonder “Why does Aston still consider the isolated Khor Kharfot as a candidate for Bountiful?” Where is his evidence? With Khor Kharfot’s numerous major drawbacks, i.e., no access by land, no protected harbor, no materials for building a ship or fabricating sails, no tradition of shipbuilding or seamanship, and no way to launch a large vessel into calm water, why would the Lord have had Nephi and his family struggle through the most hellish desert on earth just to reach a place with only natural flora, trees not suitable for building a ship, no fabric for making sails, no one to show him how to build a ship, and not even a fisherman, let alone a master captain, to teach Nephi to sail. To date, Aston has failed to provide, from the several respected maritime archaeologists who have conducted research in Oman, even one who believes that at Khor Kharfot a great sailing ship could be built, launched there, boarded by several dozen people with all their water, food, anchors, seeds, tents, etc., and have successfully sailed to the Americas without a trained captain and crew. Instead, Aston would rather have us believe the prophet Lehi preferred being a hermit while all the maritime resources his son needed to build a safe ship were only seventy miles away at Khor Rori. Phillips writes:

Wherever Lehi came to the sea and rejoiced, there were people, anywhere from an occasional visitor at Wadi Sayq to a bustling town at El Baleed (Salalah) and the busy seaport at Khor Rori. Would Nephi have rejected the help and resources so badly needed and so readily available? I do not limit God’s ability to do whatever he wishes by whatever means he wishes to do it, but if we choose the supernatural explanation, there is no meaning or purpose to all our logic and speculation. (Phillip’s 52)

Richard Wellington and I would like to invite readers to read our original article in the 15/2 issue of the JBMS, “Lehi’s Trail: From the Valley of Lemuel to Nephi’s Harbor,” and compare our documentation and the quality of our sources to those in Aston’s article in the same issue. Not only do we reconfirm our documented evidence for Khor Rori, we believe that new discoveries at Khor Rori since the 15/2 JBMS article provide further support of our conclusions. Among these are the discoveries of bronze plates at Khor Rori, one containing inscribed text (2007).

Nephi Did Not Build a Raft

By George Potter

In last month’s article I explained why Khor Kharfot in Oman does not qualify as a candidate for Nephi’s Bountiful. To date, Kharfot’s proponent, Warren Aston, has failed to provide from among the several respected maritime archaeologists who have conducted research in Oman even one who believes that at Khor Kharfot a great sailing ship could be built, launched there, boarded by several dozen people with all their water, food, anchors, sails, and tents, and have successfully sailed to the Americas without a trained captain and crew. Instead, Aston would have us believe that the prophet Lehi preferred being a hermit while all the maritime resources his son needed to build a large, stout, and safe ship were only 70 miles away at Khor Rori. Phillips writes:

Wherever Lehi came to the sea and rejoiced, there were people, anywhere from an occasional visitor at Wadi Sayq to a bustling town at El Baleed (Salalah) and the busy seaport at Khor Rori. Would Nephi have rejected the help and resources so badly needed and so readily available? I do not limit God’s ability to do whatever he wishes by whatever means he wishes to do it, but if we chose the supernatural explanation there is no meaning or purpose to all our logic and speculation.

In what appears to be a desperate attempt to reconcile the total lack of tangible and intellectual maritime resources Nephi would have needed to have constructed and launched a large sailing ship at Khor Kharfot, Aston reverts to rewriting the Book of Mormon. He would have Nephi fabricating a primitive raft rather than a stout sailing vessel capable taking a large party across two oceans and several seas. Aston claims that all arguments against Khor Kharfot would “fail if a raft-style craft were built rather than a conventional ship. ” However, like a raft, Aston’s theory holds no water.

Indeed, the argument for a raft seems quite bizarre in light of Nephi’s record. One must remember that at Khor Kharfot, Nephi would have been able to have witnessed the impressive sailing vessels of his day passing by on their way to trade for frankincense at Khor Rori. Aston seems to forget that the Almightly Lord instructed Nephi to follow His design, one superior to how other men were building ships, so that “I [the Lord] may carry thy people across these waters. 1 Nephi 17:8 ” And what would Aston have us believe was the Lord’s blueprint for an improved ship that could cross the great ocean? – a raft that Huckleberry Finn could have built.

Furthermore, Aston is suggesting that Joseph Smith made an error in his translation of the Book of Mormon. Undoubtedly, Joseph Smith realized the difference between a raft that drifts and a sailing ship that could be guided and sailed (1 Nephi 18:22). Consider each of these definitions from Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language:

raft: from floating, sweeping along, or Gr to swe, that is, to fasten together horizontally and float down a stream; a float.

ship: a peculiar structure, adapted to navigating, or floating on water by means of a sail. In an appropriate sense, a building of a structure or form fitting for navigation, furnished with a bowsprit and three masts, a main-mast, a fore-mast and a mizen mast, each of which is composed of a lower-mast, a top-mast and a top-gallant-mast, and square rigged.

Certainly, Nephi’s ship did not have the advanced features of a nineteenth-century sailing ship. However, it should be clear that Joseph Smith knew the difference between a raft that drifts and a sailing ship. Furthermore, Nephi’s own words confirm that he built a ship that he could steer (1 Nephi 18:13), “guide” and “sail” (1 Nephi 18:22). Sailing ships are maneuverable, having keels, rudders, adjustable riggings, and narrow hulls that allow the ships to be sailed in a specific direction. A raft, even suited with a sail, is as the definition states, a “float.” With a wide flat base, a raft drifts in the ocean like a bottle. Thor Heyerdahl understood this principle when he embarked from Peru on his Kon-Tiki. The explorer had the Kon-Tiki towed from the Callao harbor into the Humboldt Current. Heyerdahl had studied the path of the current and knew that it would drift the Kon-Tiki directly into the path of eastern Polynesia Islands. When his crews finally spotted land they tried to make landing but could not reach the island, for the current pushed the raft further out to sea. When the Kon-Tiki approached a second island, its crew could not steer the raft safely passed the coral reef, which caused the Kon-Tiki’s demise . Yet, according to Aston’s theory a raft could be navigated through two oceans, the dangerous currents of the East Indies and Asia Pacific archipelagos, and successfully negotiate dockings at several uncharted bays where the family would have needed to restock their fresh water and other vital supplies.

In describing his raft theory, Aston does not explain how Nephi and all his family went “down into the ship, with all their loading and seeds, and whatsoever thing we had brought with us (them)” (1 Nephi 18:6). The common-sense meaning of this verse is that Nephi and his family members stored their provisions, personal items, and bedding below deck, something that is not is possible in a raft.

Phillips writes: “No trees grow in Oman that could provide suitable planking for Nephi’s ship, either today or probably in the past. Trees are very scarce in the Dhofar, and those of significant size tend to yield gnarly, punky wood. ” Phillips could have added that the Sycamore figs that grow at Dhofar and which Aston would use in the construction his theoretical raft are softwoods, which when placed in water become waterlogged and sink. I ask you Do you really think, after looking at the seemingly endless waters of the Indian Ocean during the stormy seas of the monsoon season, that Laman and Lemuel would build a raft made from short gnarly logs, then hail the workmanship of the raft as being “exceedingly fine” (1 Nephi 18:4)?

It is much more likely that Nephi’s elder brothers would have been “exceedingly afraid” at the thought of boarding a raft that could offer no protection from the storms and driving waves that would have crashed across the entire length of the raft. For this reason, Thor Heyerdahl intentionally launched the Kon-Tiki during the calm period of the year to avoid Antarctic gales and hurricanes. For a raft launched from Khor Kharfot to have had any chance to have reached even as far India, the ait would have had to be launched during the summer monsoon season. Only during the monsoon season does the north Indian Ocean currents flow east toward India. During the remainder of the year the current reverses and flows toward Africa. Alan Villiers sailed in a large wooden sailing ship off Oman. His research was based on first-hand experience. He wrote of the summer monsoon, “the weather is usually so bad that the exposed ports on the Indian coast are closed, and the smaller trading vessels take shelter.” It is hard to imagine anyone foolish enough to set sail from Oman on a raft during the monsoon season, and an even a further stretch of rational thinking to believe that a large raft with dozens of people sitting upon its logs could have had survived the four-day “great and terrible tempest” or “great storm” that became “exceedingly sore” (1 Nephi 18:13-15). The logs of such a raft might have washed up on the beaches of west India, but all aboard would have been lost. If Nephi built a raft, he would have had no choice but to launch it during the monsoon storms. In summary, we believe it is time to dismiss once and for all Aston’s raft myth.

Also Potter has demonstrated scriptual reference and sites in Chile, Bolivia, and Peru showing relationships. All this being shown it still faces the fact that J. Smith basically described an area he knew nothing about. There wwas only one book during his prime. Located at Dartmouth College. written in French and not available to the public for viewing until 1944. This is according to the collrge historians. Also there were no books written precisley on the Frankenscense trail until well after JS death. How could JS know this. Guess it was fiction. Gotta recognize him as a literary genius.

[Ray Agostini]

Yes I can see your pointing towards Ahston description , but Potter has pointed towards other areas of intrest. The land of Dedan where eventually the people changed their name to Lehianites, and the baptismal fonts and ruins of an old temple there, plus the depicted inscription on the rocks pertaing to Christ. Also the view point differences between Potter and Ashton on where Nephi built his ship and how they were built. Ashton is adamant about Khor Kharfot beiing "Bountiful" whereas Potter is Khor Rori (Bountiful). These are viable backed by scripture. Ashton also used some of Potters work as resources to his version, but Potter disagrees with many of his conclusions. Here are several articles by Potter distancing to Ashtons conclusions:

I know, and there's the same problem with Hauck and Sorenson. And that's why I said that there are "other possibilities", not necessarily meaning that Potter is right.

[lukas_s]

I wouldn't go near that far. We believe in things like resurrection and so forth. If these are just cunningly devised fables then we are wasting some time. I'm not a scripture infallibilist, either, quite the contrary.

I really have never understood this argument. If something is a fable, but it helps you live your life in a better, more productive, spiritual way, why does it matter that it's a fable? Why is it a waste of time to hope for something?

[handys003]

I know, and there's the same problem with Hauck and Sorenson. And that's why I said that there are "other possibilities", not necessarily meaning that Potter is right.

Yeah, I think someone needs to stick them all together in the middle of the Saudi desert and get them to work it all out. The heat does wonders at getting cooperation.

[Kevin Christensen]

It still seems to me like a faith issue.

Of course.

To the contrary, could "nurturing the seed" (living worthily, I presume) also blind one to evidences against historicity? This is a sort of chicken and egg argument. I assume you accept that there have been many temple-worthy Mormons who were "nurturing the seed" yet nevertheless concluded that the BoM is not historical?

I see "nurturing the seed" with respect to exploring Book of Mormon historicity as far more involved that just living worthily. Both Alma 32 and the Parable of the Sower imply much more than that. Experiment, plant, study, ponder, compare, nurture, protect, overtime. I did a study of the actions and attitudes that Biblical peoples employed to find truth, and also found contrasting passages which described how others failed to find it. I included this in my FAIR study on Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets. In that study, I describe what I see as nurturing: Be interested, Listen with purposeful intent, Study with open minds and with faith, Examine the words, Listen to all the witnesses, Consider the credentials and motives of the witnesses involved, Be as concerned with measuring yourself as measuring the prophets, Receive the prophets for what they are, not requiring them to be something else, Pray, and Persist whatever the cost. I found that all of the arguments given against prophets by Biblical peoples demonstrated failure to follow this kind of nurturing.

Take, for example, the population argument offered in New Approaches. Kunich concludes, "Our study must be honest, open, ...and not limited by preconceived conclusions." (New Approaches, 265). In setting up his test, he goes on for 29 pages before even addressing the issue of pre-existing populations, which the archeological evidence makes plain, and which a historical Book of Mormon must accomodate. And he brushes off that evidence, and fails to offer careful consideration of the key texts, deferring to tradition and to his own assumptions. And then, as Smith shows in RBBM 6:1, Kunich uses the wrong calculations. Regardless of the morality with which he conducts his life, that is not what I call nurturing. From my perspective, it displays pride-blindness from start to finish, planting the seed where he does not expect it to grow, refusing to consider other soil, or better care.

I can also think of a few adherents of Book of Mormon historicity, who live morally, who have been equally hampered by their preconceived conclusions about where Cumorah could or could not be, or what a prophet or favored authority must have known. Meldrum, for instance. Moral living is an essential part of testing the Book of Mormon, but not the only thing that matters.

If the evidences were so obvious wouldn't many more non-Mormons, especially non-Mormon scholars accept the BoM as historical? James H. Charlesworth, for example, who clearly recognises it as being in the genre of pseudepigrapha, yet also recognises it as being worthy of modern scripture. So it's not all that clear, and some have suggested that "God designed it that way". (See also Ether 4)

Obviousness is conditional, not an inherent quality. If truth was obvious, no one would have to go to school. All we'd have to do is look, and we'd all come up with the same answer. Charlesworth wrote one interesting essay on the Book of Mormon, but that one does not really wrestle with the Book of Mormon's claims. He speculates a bit on the Christian content, offering some rationalizations that could work for its claims.

There are some very bright people, qualified in their fields who have taken a serious look, and who argue for historicity. Brant Gardner's FAIR videos are a good example. And in comparing Brant's approach and conviction with Coe's dismissals it's obvious to me why the conclusions differ. They aren't reading the text in the same way, aren't making the same assumptions, aren't reading with the same expectations, aren't contextualizing the text in the same way.

So who is blind and who really sees? I think Brant's reading is far better than Coe's. It makes better predictions, is more comprehensive and coherent, more fruitful, simpler and more aesthetically pleasing, and far more promising to follow.

Okay, I accept the importance of historicity to the Mormon community. I agree that were the Church to "downgrade" the BoM as RLDS have done, it would have a significant negative impact on membership numbers. John Dehlin also spoke about this in his podcast with John Larsen.

I'm not as concerned with the numbers as the quality and integrity of the community.

What is Barker's opinion of your observations? I assume you can ask her this.

She spoke openly about the Book of Mormon at the Joseph Smith Conference in 2005. Have you read or listened what she said?

http://www.thinlyveiled.com/barker/josiahsreform.htm

The BYU Studies publication has a bit more. She has links to the FARMS website from her own, acknowledging the LDS interest in her work, especially in relation to The Great Angel. And she and I collaborated on an essay for Terryl Givens and Reid Neilson's collection of essays on Joseph Smith, Jr: Reappraisals After Two Centuries, from Oxford University Press in 2009. Our essay is called "Seeking the Face of the Lord: Joseph Smith and the First Temple Tradition." When I sent her a copy of Paradigms Regained in February of 2002, she emailed back her appreciation, thanking me for writing the book. She said that before that, she had no idea that her work would be of such interest to Mormons. After I sent her a draft of my Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem essay, she sat down and read the Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price in one day, and said, "I was amazed at how much I recognized." I sent her a copy of John Welch's Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount. That led directly to this:

http://www.ashgate.com/default.aspx?page=637&calcTitle=1&isbn=9780754651642&lang=cy

She's the editor at Ashgate. She is fascinated by the LDS connection to her work, and not at all shy about it.

You are talking about the "roots" of Christianity being there in 600BC, but what about the Jaredites? What about the Garden of Eden? What about the clear but slow evolution of Judaism over thousands of years. Have you examined that? My determinations about historicity have been made by observing things like this.

Paradigm choice, as Kuhn says, always involves deciding "which problems are more significant to have solved?" Are you saying you can safely dismiss the significance of Margaret's work because you can bring up other problems?

What about the Jaredites? I've enjoyed Nibley's essays, Garth Norman's essays on San Lorenzo compared to Lib, plus his more recent revision. The timelines are sufficiently intriguing as to be promising. As are the very recent discovery of good elephant candidates. I see the Jaredites as very promising, considering how little has been, or can be done with them, considering the limited resources we have.

The Garden of Eden? Moses, looking at our earth "beheld many lands, and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof." (Moses 1:29.) Further, "the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many." So notice the ambiguities here. Multiple earths? Worlds without number? Multiple adams? And a garden, I think, need not, in fact, should not be a planet, nor a continent, but a suitable abode for a gardner. In this case, the creation drama is a drama, a temple text, as is the fall story. Nibley has written about that, as has Margaret. So the relation of the four dramatic texts we to the actual history does not worry me. I think all dogmatism is inappropriate, given the ambiguities I see. When I talk about them, I'm more interested in opening eyes to the possibilites, than nailing down one interpretation.

The evolution of Judaism over thousands of years? Should I expect it to be static for thousands of years?

I think many, many others have gone into this far more than Duffy, yet concluded against historicity.

If they have, few have publically documented their efforts to the extent he has. And I have looked very closely at what he has done. I find it very telling and revealing. I hope my essay on the topic finds an outlet. We shall see.

I frankly think that this is already what most members of the Church do, find in it "spiritual value". I didn't become a Mormon because I thought the BoM was historical (that would come later). I read it, in about two weeks, applied Moroni 10:4-5, and paradoxically - "the rest is history". It would be many years, 19 to be exact, before I first began to take a serious look at alternatives, including reading New Approaches and comparing it in detail with the FRB Volume 6.

I got my personal testimony just before my mission, during my third reading. A member in Kendal, England in 1975 loaned me Nibley's An Approach to the Book of Mormon, and that changed me utterly by showing me how much I was missing in a text I thought I knew well. And if you've read "Paradigms Crossed", you should see that I read New Approaches and RBBM 6:1 very closely.

Regarding David's posts about Margaret,... I read them a few years ago, and responded on a ZLMB thread. I like and respect David, but I think he over-simplifies the appeal that Margaret's work has for LDS. For me, it is not a few bullet points of doctrinal correspondence. It is the elaborate convergence of two strikingly different approaches. Joseph's inspired translation, compared to Margaret's extensive study of sources texts that have emerged since Joseph's day. Not just ahistorical teachings, but elaborate consideration of the same times and places.

Plus, in those responses David tends to phrase things in way designed to make her look radical and irresponsible, rather than perceptive in relation to Hebrew scripture and archeology. For instance,

"According to Barker, First Temple Israelites worshipped Israels earthly king as an incarnation of Yahweh[1],"

In my view, David could more fairly conveyed her case by reporting that her work shows that on the Day of Atonement, the King and/or High Priest wore a turban, on which was a metal plate on which was the tetragramaton. Any Israelite watching the ritual would know exactly what that name and name-bearer symbolized. And at appropriate times in the ritual, they would do just what Benjamin's people did. They would fall down and worship.

David reports her as saying that she claims they "practiced cultic child sacrifice[2]." She reports what happens in 1 Kings 16:3-4, and that Isaiah has nothing to say about it. She reports what Abraham did with Issac. That does not mean she approves or advocates, or calls for a return to child sacrifice, but she raises issues inherent in the presence of such stories in our canon, and asks why they might have done such things and what meaning they might put to such things. Particularly since the sacrifice of the Son is central to Christianity.

And just how and when different Israelites or Christians viewed the Hebrew Goddess, or related her with the Lord does not have to correspond perfectly with LDS teaching, which is rather skanty, beyond Oh My Father. And just because she quotes Gnostics in the chapters on Gnostics, that doesn't make her a Gnostic. She quotes them in a trajectory, following Hebrew scripture, archeology, Jewish writings, DDS, non-canonical writings, Gnostics, and early Christian writings. They don't all interpret things the same way, but the constellation of ideas moves together, and is recognizable and significant for LDS, regardles of the different flavors. And as Alyson Von Feldt showed best, I think, it's very interesting to LDS. Not as Gnostic, but as part of a related constellation of ideas associated always with the temple.

And I'm going to be on vacation for 10 days after tomorrow. A long drive into Canda and Maine and Boston. So don't expect quite as much response after that.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[paulpatter]

I believe the BOM is historical, but it's historicity is totally irrelevant to its "truth"

"Totally irrelevant"? How can that be possible? If the book is not what it purports to be (". . .an abridgement of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites--Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the House of Israel. . . ."), how can its "truth" be trusted? Moreover, the entire account of the book's coming forth lies in a shambles, as does the legitimacy of Joseph Smith as a prophet.

If one subscribes to the notion that the BOM isn't historical--a notion that sadly seems to be gaining momentum even among some "faithful" LDS--what's left?

: The value of the book is the way it has changed my life and the lives of others.

I know you are sincere, and I know what you say is true. Unfortunately, however, it isn't sufficient to establish the "truth" of the BOM. Many books have changed lives, including some written by atheists/agnostics.

[Ray Agostini]

And I'm going to be on vacation for 10 days after tomorrow. A long drive into Canda and Maine and Boston. So don't expect quite as much response after that.

Enjoy your vacation. I'll go through the Barker link (I'm not sure if I've read that one, though I haven't read any of her books) and get back a bit later. There's a lot I'd like to reply to in your post, but consider my pestering over for at least 10 days. I don't know how anyone can consider such a long drive a "vacation", but then I drive for a living and the last thing I want to do on vacation is being behind a steering wheel.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Thanks Ray and Kevin.

[Kevin Christensen]

I do want to bring up one other aspect of the histocity question. Our views of historicity affect how we contextualize the Book of Mormon. And those contexts profoundly affect not only our committment to the Book of Mormon, and/or to the LDS community (social and moral issues), but also how we read the text. When we contextualize differently, we read a very different text. That is what I got from Nibley when I first encountered his work. And all that I have read since then re-enforces my sense of the importance of the issue. Sorenson and Gardner and Wirth and Christenson and Wright and others on the Mesoamerican side have shown how context we bring affects the meaning, just as Nibley, Welch, Peterson, Tvedtnes, Ricks and others have done so on the Ancient Near Eastern side.

That is why I opened Paradigms Regained with the quote from Margaret Barker's 1987 The Older Testament.

The life and work of Jesus were, and should be, interpreted in the light of something other than Jerusalem Judaism. This other had its roots in the conflicts of the sixth century BC when the traditions of the monarchy were divided as an inheritance amongst several heirs. It would have been lost but for the accidents of archaeological discovery and the evidence of pre-Christian texts preserved and transmitted only by Christian hands.

Her work offered a context against which to test the Book of Mormon, just as the Book of Mormon offered a context against which to test her work.

When I've looked at attempts to read the Book of Mormon purely for doctrine, I notice that the unstated context always turns out to be uncritical ethnocentric preconceptions. Louis Midgley wrote a brilliant essay on this in the first RBBM.

And modern attempts to read as a 19th century text, such as Mark Thomas's Digging in Cumorah, turns out to offer readings that no one in the 19th Century offered. Alan Goff pointed out that Thomas's limited attempts to use Robert Alter's 1981 The Art of Biblical Narrative do not belong to a 19th century approach, but are essential for any histocicist approach. The actual useful 19th century readings that we have, such as by Alexander Campbell and Obediah Dogberry, present a great deal of revealing mis-reading. The essays by Grant Underwood on how the LDS actually used the Book of Mormon are quite different, but also show their limited focus and grasp, given the limits on how they could contextualize the text.

Blake Oster's attempts to synthesize the approaches is much better, and still useful, but also dated by discoveries in the 22 years since he published in Dialogue in 1987. In my view, most of what he interpreted as Joseph's Christianizing expansions are better explained by Margaret's Temple Theology.

I don't see Book of Abraham issues as an equivalent model for approaching the Book of Mormon, which comes dragging the scandals of angels, witnesses, plates, Biblical prophecy, money diggers ransacking the house, seer stones, rival seers, more. The Book of Mormon is foundational and scandalous in ways that the Book of Abraham is not. It is also much easier to contextualize.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Ray Agostini]

She spoke openly about the Book of Mormon at the Joseph Smith Conference in 2005. Have you read or listened what she said?

http://www.thinlyveiled.com/barker/josiahsreform.htm

I just read the link and it's quite interesting. One thing that struck me was this:

Originally they had made no blood sacrifices, just offerings of wine, incense and cereals, like the refugees who fled to Egypt with Jeremiah. Isaiah had prophesied that there would be an altar for the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt (Isaiah 19.19), and five cities speaking the language of Canaan and worshipping the Lord of Hosts.

This is something pointed out by David Wright, which struck me quite significantly, but Barker seems to place this as a precursor to blood sacrifices, not an end in itself.

Changes in the Second Temple:

The work of Josiah was not forgotten. Even mainstream Jewish texts from well into the Christian era record that great changes took place at that time, and that the second temple was inferior to the first. The great commentary on the book of Numbers, known as the Numbers Rabbah, said that in the time of the Messiah, five things would be restored which had been in the first temple but not in the second: the fire, the ark, the menorah, the spirit and the cherubim (Numbers Rabbah XV.10). In other words, the true temple which the Messiah would restore was the first temple, the one Josiah had purged. The mystery here is the menorah: there had been a menorah in the second temple, but it cannot have been the true menorah if this was deemed to be missing from the second temple. The Babylonian Talmud records that Josiah had hidden away the ark, the holy anointing oil, the jar of manna and Aaronâ??s rod (b.Horayoth 12a). Most of these items â?? the ark, the cherubim, the oil, the manna and Aaronâ??s rod â?? had been kept in the holy of holies to which only the high priests had access. In other words, Josiahâ??s changes concerned the high priests, and were thus changes at the very heart of the temple.

This assumes almost a complete apostasy on the part of Israel during the second temple period. I suppose that it's possible that knowledge was lost, and that early Israel had a better understanding of the role of the Messiah, Melchizedek, Enoch, and the symbolism in Abraham's sacrifice of Issac. There would be no substitute in the case of Christ, etc. Well it's probably true that Christianity didn't just mysteriously emerge totally independent of Judaic roots.

The reason I asked about the Jaredites is simply - how would they have known so much about "Christianity"? How far back does this knowledge go? To the "Garden of Eden"? I can see why you see so much agreement with Barker, but I'm not sure I entirely agree yet. It's probably not as cut-and-dried as most of us assume. Many, many complexities. If "the prophets" did have a far greater knowledge of "the role of the Messiah" which eventually became lost, as through the second temple, then I suppose it's possible to view the BoM as not being anachronistic, or maybe embellished to some extent (Blake Ostler, "The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion") while preserving the "essentials".

[Kevin Christensen]

I just read the link and it's quite interesting. One thing that struck me was this:

That particular passage in Margaret's prompted me to go back and rethink my own view of Josiah's reform, and re-read the Book of Mormon, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel in that light. When I wrote Paradigms Crossed, I still thought of Josiah as a reformer. I've since come around, and see Lehi's first discourse as a direct response to the Reformers, Jacob 4 as a direct response, and Sherem as a representative of the kind of religion that promoted. I also see Jeremiah as called in the 13th year of Josiah (the year after the reform starts) against the Kings, Princes (Elders), priests, and people of the land (who installed Josiah). "Hath a nation changed their Gods?... Ye have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters..."

This is a link to Margaret's direct talk on the Book of Mormon, which she gave two years after her visit to BYU.

http://www.joehunt.org/joseph-smith-margaret-barker-talk.html

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Cold Steel]

Let's say, hypothetically of course, that one day you discovered that it was not historical. Would you still believe in "its truth"?

No, because then it would not be true.

Good fruit cannot come from deception, and many doctrines of the Book of Mormon as they pertain to the grafting in of Israel and the importance of continuing revelation cannot possibly be true if Mormonism is false. If the Protestants and Catholics are correct, then revelation no longer is needed. The faith has been "once for all" delivered and there's no need to deliver it again. The Book of Mormon teaches just the opposite of this. When Jesus comes to the New World, he divides his apostles into twelve, and each of the twelve administer to that portion of the people. This, by the way, has ancient parallels among the Old World Christians, according to Nibley, who did the same following his resurrection.

The Book of Mormon directs its readers to Joseph Smith, prophecies about the three witnesses, associates many of the Isaiah passages to restorationist events and paints a bleak future for the gentiles unless they partake of it. In short, we'd be back to accepting either the Protestant or Catholic interpretation of Christianity, which is not compatible with the Book of Mormon's teachings. The Book of Mormon also directs its readers to Christ as the Lord and Savior of mankind, which is fine if you believe that, but Jews and Muslims don't, and if Islam is correct, the Book of Mormon is an obstacle of truth.

As romantic fiction, the Book of Mormon is dry in many places, tedious in others; yet it leads the reader to a point requiring a commitment to certain principles and concepts. All it would do is highlight Smith and provide a basis for his theology. Only if he's who he said he was does the book become what it, itself, claims to be.

In short, if I found out it wasn't history, I'd toss all my copies and stick to whatever new basis of truth I would adopt. Having said that, it's very principles and teachings are what makes it valuable in that they are true and can be depended on. That the church clings to it so tenaciously while churches like the Community of Christ have relegated it to caveat emptor status says a lot about both churches.

[mfbukowski]

"Totally irrelevant"? How can that be possible? If the book is not what it purports to be (". . .an abridgement of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites--Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the House of Israel. . . ."), how can its "truth" be trusted? Moreover, the entire account of the book's coming forth lies in a shambles, as does the legitimacy of Joseph Smith as a prophet.

If one subscribes to the notion that the BOM isn't historical--a notion that sadly seems to be gaining momentum even among some "faithful" LDS--what's left?

I know you are sincere, and I know what you say is true. Unfortunately, however, it isn't sufficient to establish the "truth" of the BOM. Many books have changed lives, including some written by atheists/agnostics.

As I said in my earlier posts, the issue is an epistemological one based about what anyone can know about history. The bottom line is that its historicity can neither be proven nor disproven conclusively so the issue becomes irrelevant.

[mfbukowski]

I do want to bring up one other aspect of the histocity question. Our views of historicity affect how we contextualize the Book of Mormon. And those contexts profoundly affect not only our committment to the Book of Mormon, and/or to the LDS community (social and moral issues), but also how we read the text. When we contextualize differently, we read a very different text.

I had never considered this, and of course it has to be true. Thanks for pointing this out- it potentially changes everything. I had not appreciated your points about how one was living could affect the historicity question, and now I do. Very very interesting notion, thanks again.

[Ray Agostini]

That particular passage in Margaret's prompted me to go back and rethink my own view of Josiah's reform, and re-read the Book of Mormon, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel in that light. When I wrote Paradigms Crossed, I still thought of Josiah as a reformer. I've since come around, and see Lehi's first discourse as a direct response to the Reformers, Jacob 4 as a direct response, and Sherem as a representative of the kind of religion that promoted. I also see Jeremiah as called in the 13th year of Josiah (the year after the reform starts) against the Kings, Princes (Elders), priests, and people of the land (who installed Josiah). "Hath a nation changed their Gods?... Ye have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters..."

Well apparently Barker has devoted her life to studying ancient Christianity and the study of Temple Theology.

However, Robert Price:

Barker makes the archangels aspects of Yahweh and thus instantiations of the second God. She notes at one point that various Gnostics pictured one of the archangels with the face of a donkey (Origen, Conta Celsum VI. 30; Apocryphon of John 2.1.11). If both the Old Testament Yahweh and the exalted Jesus were supposed pictures or less equivalent to one or more archangels, one wondeConta thlsum I. 30; have heron of John hint we are ever likely to get as to the origin of the pagan belief that Jews worshiped the head of an *** in their temple, and of the pagan graffito showing the crucified Christ with an ***'s head. Could these representations actually reflect some type of vanished Jewish and Christian sectarian iconography? There is much to think about.

I think Price is out of his depth here.

From another critical review:

I really enjoy Margaret Barkerâ??s work. For those unfamiliar with her, sheâ??s a scholar in the fields of biblical studies and Second Temple Judaism. I interacted with her work as part of my dissertation. Unfortunately, Barker is often accused of over-reaching the data and drawing conclusions that are too speculative. Thatâ??s fairâ??you read Barker because she asks questions no one else seems to, and argues for connecting dots that most scholars donâ??t think can or should be connected. In short, sheâ??s stimulating, and well worth reading. But still, the criticisms are fair.

I recently had someone ask me about a claim Barker makes in an online article. Barker claims that in the Dead Sea Great Isaiah scroll, in the famous virgin birth passage, the prophet says to King Ahaz, â??ask for yourself a sign from the mother of Yahwehâ? (Isaiah 7:11) â?? thereby suggesting that Sea Gr had a wife who would in part be responsible for the messianic child (or perhaps that Yahweh had ours other). Aside from the problems associated with the notion that the original Isaiah 7 prophecy was about the messiah, or Jesus (it wasnâ??t - it was later used as an example of â??analogous prophetic fulfillmentâ? by the gospel writer Matthew), Barkerâ??s notion is misguided â?? and Iâ??d say even manipulative. (But I still say you should read her stuff â?? just do it with both eyes open). Iâ??ll try and explain why.

In the image below you have: (1) blue notes about modern handwriting by the scholar who handle the photo of the text - he puts in verse numbers corresponding to the Masoretic text (=MT) versification and finishes lines based on MT. (2) a red line underlining the portion in question, and the Hebrew text from the MT to that corresponding portion (from Isa 7:11). (3) T) versifrrows in brown and purple about the way letters are formed.this PDF for an explanation of the image and Barkerâ??s manufacture of a goddess here.

Margaret Barker Manufactures a Goddess in Isaiah 7.

And another critical review: Faith-Promoting Rumor.

In the same way, Barker and many LDS â?¦.. are engaged in the same kind of project, to appeal to pure â??originsâ? of Israelite religion in order to produce authenticity about contemporary beliefs and practices. Such an approach is necessarily partial and selective. Instead of learning about ancient Israel, we learn about those who are attempting to recount its history. If Barkerâ??s work has any value, it is in the exposure of this theme in various religious traditions up until today.

Well the question here is: Who is being "selective"? Did the Jews have an "elaborate" concept of the Messiah which became corrupted?

It is still not apparent to me how Christianity could have emerged without precedents. Paul described these things as "hid from the foundation of the worldâ? but "revealed in these last times" (paraphrasing). The Jews were expecting a Messiah, and perhaps this expectation was relegated to a "mortal messiah" who would deliver Israel from her temporal enemies. But what I'm coming to see, is that these expectations were, perhaps limited. Of course they would expect "Jewish redemption" from oppressors. The question that looms is: Was this "redemption" not only "civil", but extended from the national to the universal? That is, the redemption of Israel being "symbolic" of a universal redemption.

[mysteryman]

I don't think historicity is important. I am constantly told that prophets can be wrong since they are not perfect and are also free to give their opinions. Therefore, whether or not Joseph or his successors believed the Book of Mormon historical it doesn't matter, they may have only expressed their opinion. Furthermore, I have heard apologists beat the drum that Joseph or his successors could have been wrong about Indians being Lamanites, the hill Cummorah in New York, where the Book of Mormon events occurred, etc, etc. Well, if they can be wrong about those things, why not just go all the way and say prophets have been wrong about BOM historicity? Maybe it was meant to be simply an inspired book of scripture similar to a parable but the prophets who have said otherwise were either wrong or just expressing their opinion to the contrary.

[thesometimesaint]

mysteryman:

That is an appeal to Atheism, another irrational religion.

[mfbukowski]

I had never considered this, and of course it has to be true. Thanks for pointing this out- it potentially changes everything. I had not appreciated your points about how one was living could affect the historicity question, and now I do. Very very interesting notion, thanks again.

The more I think about this, the greater its implications.

Do we have a "duty" to believe in BOM historicity, so that the context for us is altered so that in fact the text in question BECOMES "historical"?

I know this will be a far out concept for those here who have a more fundamentalist, dualist view of "truth" than I do, but I am posting it anyway.

This is based on the idea that our observations of what we believe of our ancestors experiences in fact form what we call "history", and it is in some sense alterable, since no one can know what "really" happened in any objective sense.

Suppose for example, suppose those who believe the halocaust or the moon landing never happened "win", and the "true" history is lost forever.

With thousands of years of kings, pharaohs and despots with unlimited power behind us and no printing or free press etc, I am sure Stalin and Mao's attempts to revise history are simply amateurish and silly compared to what has really happened.

If we cannot even get an "objective" report in the newspaper about what happened yesterday, how can we possibly know what "really" happened thousands of years ago?

So do we have a duty to believe in the historicity of the BOM, thus changing the context of our own and thus society's perception of it?

I am beginning to think we do.

[thesometimesaint]

mfbukowski:

It is the keystone of our religion. Without it the whole edifice comes falling dome.

[mysteryman]

mysteryman:

That is an appeal to Atheism, another irrational religion.

What in the world are you talking about? How was my post an appeal to Atheism? I was just making similar claims that apologists do, prophets can be wrong and give their own opinions. I won't go too much into the absurd comment that Atheism is a religion to not derail the thread, not sure why it makes religious folks feel warmer and cozier to want to think of Atheism as a religion, I guess it gives them the false hope their on equal ground.

[thesometimesaint]

mysteryman:

Because the exact same things can be said about any religion, including Atheism.

[mysteryman]

mysteryman:

Because the exact same things can be said about any religion, including Atheism.

I agree that the defenses Mormon apologists have created can be used for any religion (which Atheism is not, I assume your smart enough to know that and are just saying that for rhetorical affect). But so what if other religions cold say the same thing?

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski:

It is the keystone of our religion. Without it the whole edifice comes falling dome.

That is true only if you think it is.

[paulpatter]

As I said in my earlier posts, the issue is an epistemological one based about what anyone can know about history. The bottom line is that its historicity can neither be proven nor disproven conclusively so the issue becomes irrelevant.

Presumably, your "anyone" includes the Lord's prophets who have repeatedly--literally thousands of times in speeches and writings and electronic formats--declared the BOM to be exactly what it purports to be: an historical account of ancient civilizations that lived somewhere in the Americas. Have you--or anyone else--heard those leaders hedge about the accuracy of the declared historicity of the BOM?

The suggestion that the inspired leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not know the true history of the BOM--even while they testify of it to millions worldwide--is, forgive me, shameful IMO.

[thesometimesaint]

Not just me.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=56a6ef960417b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____